Skip to main content

Full text of "The independent"

See other formats

sps n 









f ebruary SO 


THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the 
Foundation for Independent Video and Film. Inc.. 99 Prince 
St.. NY. NY 10012. with support from the New York State 
Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts, 
a federal agency. Subscription is included in membership to 
the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 

Frances Piatt 

Layout & Design: Bill Jones 

Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

BUSINESS — By Mitchell Block 5 

MEDIA AWARENESS — By Tad Turner 7 




THE COLUMN — By Judy Ray& 15 

Rich Berkowitz 

The viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, 
articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence 
we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material tc 
THE INDEPENDENT. 99 Prince St., NY, NY 10012. If you'd like 
your material returned to you please enclose a self-addressed 
stamped envelope. 

NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of 
month preceding publication, preferrably earlier. 

By Monica Freeman 




It would indeed by unfortunate if the controversy over 
the four films excluded by WNET from this season's In- 
dependent Focus obscured the films that were ac- 
cepted, and the role of the peer panel in that process. In 
spite of its omissions, this year's programming is more 
diverse, and even "controversial", than in the previous 
two years, and the independent film community should 
not lose sight of this fact. Even in its limited, advisory 
role, the panel did have an effect. 

For a program like Independent Focus, one of whose 
aims I would like to think is the expansion of the form 
and content of public television, this outside opinion is 
crucial. Bureaucracies are conservative by nature — 
and WNET is a bureaucratic organization. It operates 
according to the laws of gravity: it's always harder to 
push things up from below than it is to have them fall 
down from above. 

The pull is always there to take the safe, competent 
films, to avoid the controversial, the outrageous, and 

the interesting failures — anything that may not fall 
within the obscure yet rigid boundaries of "broadcast 
standards". Given the amount of work a programmer 
has to face in sorting through hundreds of films in a 
short amount of time, outside opinions are helpful. 

This is not to say that the resulting group of films is, or 
should be, the product of a consensus. Nor does it 
mean that all the films have to appeal to all the 
segments of the WNET audience (past, present, or 
future) — or to the WNET management. But if the sta- 
tion is, as it says it is, committed to expressing diverse 
points of view, and developing new audiences, it has an 
obligation to include those prints of view in the deci- 
sion process itself. 

Film programming is neither an art nor a science, nor 
simply a question of selecting "good" films; it's what 
you do with the films that have "problems" that makes 
the difference. There were, for example, no objections 
to Salt of the Earth, With Babies and Banners and 

several other films. On the other hand, California 
Newsreel's documentary about multi-national corpora- 
tions, Controlling Interest, and Charles Burnett's fiction 
feature about a black family in Los Angeles, Killer of 
Sheep, were, and will be, less unanimous in their ap- 
peal. In style and content, they will upset some viewers, 
as they did people at WNET, but Independent Focus is 
a stronger series for having these films — and the 
views of the panel made their inclusion possible 

I'd like to see more outrageous and courageous films 
on Independent Focus, and elsewhere on public tele- 
vision — but it's not going to happen unless people ask 
for them, and filmmakers are encouraged to make them 
because they think there is an audience for work which 
is out of the ordinary in some way. And I'd like to think 
that this year's program is a small step in that direction. 

Eric Breitbart 


Mr. Alan Jacobs 



99 Prince St. 

New York, N.Y. 10012 

Dear Alan: 

In the spirit of keeping your membership both regularly 
and accurately apprised of developments in the area of 
independent television program funding policy, I'd like to 
bring to your attention a fairly important inaccuracy made 
in the December/January issue of the INDEPENDENT. 

The legal memorandum that was printed on pages 19-20, 
under the banner, "C.P.B. HEARS FOOTSTEPS", was 
mistakenly attributed to the Corporation. In fact, this 
memo was prepared for the Public Broadcasting Service 
(P.B.S.) under an arrangement with an outside law firm. 
The memorandum was in response to CPB's August, 1979 
draft paper on independent television producting funding, a 
fact which can be confirmed by contacting Elizabeth 
Shriver, the PBS General Counsel. 


Steven J. Symonds 
Assistant Director 
Legislative Affairs 


When Marc Weiss asked me to be on the Independent Focus 
panel, I declined (INDEPENDENT, October 1979). It seemed to 
be a no-win situation and I could tell it would be a long 
and drawn out battle. Not that I have anything against 
battles — but I'd rather do my fighting out-of-house or at 
least get paid (well) if the show's going on inside. The 
smoke is still clearing over at the Henry Hudson (Newark- 
on-Ninth), but here's what I see through the field glasses: 

That the four panel-recommended films which WNET 
vetoed will NOT be included in the series was evident from 
the first meeting that the panel had with management. The 
only film that seems to even stand a chance of getting 
broadcast singly is Jan Oxenberg's A COMEDY IN SIX 

UNNATURAL ACTS. It's not a question of the merits of the 
film — it's just that the gay community was the most vocal 
and organized. 

So the series goes on, true to form for independents with 
NO publicity and NO follow through. There has been NO 
attention paid to the selections that did get by, and they 
include some of the most controversial work ever aired by 
public television: THE SALT OF THE EARTH, CIA CASE 
CONTROLLING INTEREST. Those films got under the fence, 
despite the objections of such WNET honchos as Walter 
Goodman, formerly of the limes and now editorial czar and 
gatekeeper. In a memo, he declared that the only reason 
CONTROLLING INTEREST would pass was because of the 
independent pressure. 

At this point, it seems obvious that some controversial 
work was bound to get on and just as obvious that WNET 
would have had to draw the line at some point — if only to 
have us all keep in mind just who the boss is. Of course 
they knew we would object. I would venture to say that the 
main reason they had to draw the line was to make sure 
that the panel system failed. It would be a disaster for 
WNET and PBS if the panel system was to actually succeed 
in choosing a good series, getting good publicity and 
initiating positive and trusting relationships with indies 
What a frightening precedent! They might really have to 
do more of that sort of thing. And it was almost a success. 
Marc Weiss was the perfect combination of conscience and 
sensibility; the panel he chose and worked with was truly 
diverse and respected, the films they winnowed out are a 
good mix of topics and styles. That four of those films were 
nixed was just a convenient out for WNET. This way they 
are vindicated. Obviously independents are too hot to 
handle as programmers, spreading dissension and bad 
press. Best of all: WNET has remained — THE ENEMY. The 
image of the strong, protective, restrictive Daddy against 
those rebellious independent youngsters is one they like to 
cultivate in their board rooms and in Congress. The set-up 
feeds on keeping us angry and frustrated. The madder we 
get, the more reasonable they sound. It's a classic case of 
blaming the victim. Like the poverty programs of the 
Sixties, their gestures at reform need to fail. 

Designing a panel system that can work against these odds 
is a tricky business. Marc Weiss is now in the difficult 
position of having to drum up attention to the films that 
DID get on the series (thereupon becoming a gratis 
promoter of WNET) and at the same time give support and 
sympathy to the irate panelists. 

As an irate non-panelists, I will swallow my pride and 
watch the show. Thanks to Marc and the panel and despite 
Liz Oliver and her bosses, it's the best independent series 
so far on the tube. 

DeeDee Halleck 

AIVF is updating and enlarging our reference library so 

that it will be more comprehensive and useful to our 


We are seeking the following materials from members 

and other interested groups or individuals: 

• successful proposals, treatments and scripts 
which can be used as models, 

• sample budgets, contracts, business prospec- 
tuses for production companies, 

• any tax law and copyright information pertaining 
to all areas of film and video production. 

Mr. John J. Iselin 
WNET/ 13 
356 W. 58th St. 
New York, NY 10019 

Dear Mr. Iselin, 

I wish to protest the refusal of WNET-13 to show our film 
"The Chicago Maternity Center Story" on Independent 
Focus after it had been selected by the selection panel and 
the producer of the show. 

Our film and the three other important films ("Finally Got 
the News", "0 Povo Organizado", and "Comedy in Six 
Unnatural Acts") being censored from the series went 
through the selection process, and then were rejected by 
WNET executive Liz Oliver. There seems to have been no 
coherent or formulated standard applied to these films. I 
am familiar with all four films and believe that they all 
should be shown. If WNET wants to expand its audience 
from the elite educated class, if it wants to deal with social 
issues from alternate perspectives, then these films from 
and about oppressed communities (women's movement, gay 
movement, black worker's movement, Third World 
movement) are what is needed. 

There is a great deal of cynicism among oppressed groups 
on the one hand and independent producers on the other, 
that Educational TV has no interest in serving their needs. 
This incident can only confirm the attitude that many 
already have that Educational TV is controlled by rich 
subscribers and corporate funders, and that those of us 
who use the "wrong tone" will not be allowed access. 

At a point when Ms. Oliver was considering whether or not 
to program our film she called me to ask whether I would 
be willing to make certain changes in the film in order to 
make it acceptable to WNET. I agreed to discuss the matter 
and that I would consider making changes if when the film 
was presented WNET acknowledged that the film had been 
edited (or censored) for TV. Ms. Oliver agreed to this, and 
on this basis we talked for over an hour about the specifics 
of the narration. Of course one could protest the very idea 
that WNET should be re-editing or censoring works 
presented in an Independent Focus format. After all, these 
works were not commissioned by WNET, and the 
presentation format makes that clear. (The censoring of 
commissioned works is a separate, but related problem.) 

However, in order to try and better understand Ms. Oliver's 
and WNET's criterion I agreed to the process. After the 
discussion we agreed to make a few changes, none of which 
would have fundamentally changed the meaning of the 
film. Ms. Oliver raised some questions that she was unable 
to support. However, there were no changes that she 
demanded and that I refused. It was left that she still 
wanted to think it over, and that she would get back to me. 
(Marc Weiss later informed me of her decision.) It became 
clear to both of us that her main objection was to the 
"tone" of the movie, to the "sarcastic tone" in the 
narrator's voice, and to the "manipulative use of music". 

We all see sarcastic narration and commentary, and 
manipulative music on TV every day, often in films that 
claim to be "objective" (which ours does not). We feel that 
Ms. Oliver's and WNET's "problem" is the same with all 
four films. Not only do they deal with controversial 
subjects, but they are open and honest about their 
viewpoints and sympathies. 

We believe that most of the media in this culture is 
controlled by a dominant culture, and while it will air 
some programs on controversial subjects, these programs 
must be in forms that are acceptable, i.e., they must have a 
tone with which the dominant culture feels comfortable. 

There have been many programs on your station that have 
had as an underlying theme that one of the great values of 
advanced capitalism is the development of new technologies 
that serve mankind. Our film of course presents a different 
view of this question. I am beginning to understand, 
though, that this is not the "problem" that WNET has with 
it. I can even imagine you programming a "pseudo 
objectively styled" film that examined this question from 
our point of view. 

Our film is different because it is made for and with the 
people who are suffering from the consequences of the 
dominant culture's view of technology. They cannot be 
asked to be "objective" about their own oppression. They 
cannot be dispassionate as they examine its historical 

In closing let me say again that I think the issue is the 
same for all four films. If you honestly wish to deal with 
controversies and to broaden your audience to include 
minorities and oppressed groups, then you must examine 
the prejudices and limitations of your present 
programming procedures. The independent panel approach 
for Independent Focus was a good beginning. If WNET is 
going to present a plurality of viewpoints, then your staff 
must be encouraged to respect and learn from these panels 
and the works they choose, and not to suppress them. 


Gordon Quinn 
Jerry Blumenthal 
Jennifer Rohrer 



OTTmiLL Wo H(L@« 



I recently served as a screener for one of the largest 
grants available to individual filmmakers without 
matching requirements: the WNET Television 
Laboratory Independent Documentary Fund. As readers 
know, this $550,000 fund provides up to $80,000 for in- 
dependent documentaries. This year there were over 
800 applications. I served on a jury with a Los Angeles- 
based public television station filmmaker. We were 
sent about 40 proposals with sample works to evaluate. 
In looking at the material about grants that has been 
published, I found that few jurors have written about 
the process from their point of view. I am not sure how 
the films and tapes we sent on will be evaluated by the 
final jury of the Independent Documentary Fund, or that 
my experience is necessarily similar to that of other 
screeners, but I feel that this experience is worth 

I received a packet of 38 proposals. The instructions for 
the grant called for a 3-page proposal, consisting of 2 
pages dealing with the project, its significance in terms 
of national programming, a short production schedule 
and some background on the key personnel, plus a 
third page for the project's budget. Additional material 
could include the key personnel's resumes. 

We received two copies of each proposal. Since most 
of the proposals were rubber-banded to video casset- 
tes, most were folded in half. Only two of the proposals 
were bound. About half were badly typed or copied and 
were hard to read. Few proposals included resume or 
background material on the filmmakers. Most of the 
proposals were submitted on plain rather than bond 
paper. Most were badly written and organized. A 
number of proposals lacked clear identification. It 
would seem that some of the applicants did not care 
what their proposal looked like, and that they did not 
really want us to bother to read them. 


1. Follow the written instructions provided by the fund- 
ing organization (except as noted below). 

2. Type proposal with carbon ribbon and clear, clean 
type font. 

3. Xerox proposal onto bond paper. Use your letterhead 
for the cover letter. 

4. For proposals under 40 pages, bind proposal with 
"Velco"-type binding. 


1. Follow instructions; give the funding organization 
ALL the information requested. 

2. Use headings on the pages to make finding that in- 
formation simpler for the readers. 

3. Avoid making statements that are not universally 
"true". For example, one proposal I read, referring to 
an obscure local problem, said, "This issue has 

resulted in wide national coverage." It had not. 

4. Indicate as close to the beginning of the proposal as 
possible the following information: 

a. Name of proposed film or tape 

b. Length of proposed film or tape 

c. Format (film or tape or both) 

d. Color, black and white, sync sound and other 
technical information. 

In a number of cases the WNET grant proposals fail- 
ed to indicate format or length. 

5. Production schedules are useful and generally re- 
quired information. Provide one that shows realistic 

6. Key Production Personnel: 

a. Name names; give one or two lines of information 
on the director, producer, writers, etc. 

b. In an appendix, provide no more than two-page 
resumes of key production personnel. Resumes 
should show how that person's experience relates 
to the job you are hiring for on this grant project. 
A resume showing strong director credits for your 
cameraperson, for example, does not help as 
much as a listing of camera credits. 

7. Be as clear as possible in your writing so that the 
readers can follow. What is the project about? How 
will you do it? How long will it take? What audience 
is the film/tape for? And how much is this going to 
cost? are the basic questions your grant proposal 
should answer. Other questions should include: Why 
should this film/tape be made? Why should I be 
given the chance to make it? If the film/tape gets 
funded, what is the chance it will be good? It is 
possible to answer ALL of these questions in a two- 
page, 900-word proposal. Granted, the answers will 
not be totally complete, but the jurors will get what 
they need to make their next set of decisions. 


The purpose of the sample work for most grant applica- 
tions is to show the panelist that the work you are pro- 
posing to do is within your technical range. Some 
grants like the National Endowment-American Film In- 
stitute Independent Filmmakers Grants are for the inex- 
perienced. Sample works I screened fell into four 
categories: bad video .or filmmaking, "student" or 
amateur quality work, work whose authorship was 
questionable (quality varied), and outstanding. To those 
applying for grants where sample works are required, I 
would suggest the following: 

1. Put your name, project or grant title, sample work 
title, your credit, and the length of the sample on the 
outside of the shipping carton. 

2. Select a sample work which you directed that most 
represents the project for which you are seeking 

BUSINESS continued 

funding. An excellent narrative fictional film almost 
never shows that its director can do a documentary, 
for example. 

3. Make sure credits on work are clear. If you are apply- 
ing for a director's grant, and have never directed 
anything, then show a work you at least edited. 

4. % inch video seems easier to screen. KCET, for ex- 
ample, had only one 16mm screening facility we 
could use and I ended up bringing my Kodak 
Pageant projector so we could look at the 16mm 
films. Try to offer your sample work on % inch tape. 

5. If your work is varied, try providing the panels with 
an edited % inch reel showing selected parts of the 
work you have done. Make sure written credits, 
descriptions and running times are packaged with 
the videotape. 

6. If you lack sample works as a director-producer, 

perhaps you are applying for the wrong grant and 
should consider packaging a grant for a different 
organization that funds first films. 

I found the experience of working for WNET's 
Documentary Fund very interesting and worthwhile. I 
am somewhat concerned about the lack of guidelines 
for the panels. No one told us what a fundable film was, 
what was a subject of national significance, or what the 
final panel was looking for. This process in many ways 
seems unfair, since no two juries are the same in terms 
of bias or whatever. How does WNET know they are get- 
ting the best? or What is the best? are questions that 
have interesting answers. In any event, getting too 
many "great" ideas for shows does not seem to be a 
(c) 1980MWB 

BEST BOY To Open in 
New York On February 29 

SUTTON THEATER, 57 th between 2nd and 3rd 



\m& /mimmmi 

Public Broadcasting 

Whose network is it ? 


With PBS's new Association for Public Broadcasting, 
the proposed formation of the Blue, Red and Green net- 
works, CPB's insulated Program Fund, and its five year 
plan, public broadcasting is once again in a state of 
"total reorganization". It seems worthwhile then to re- 
examine the goals of the system and the forces acting 
on it from both the public and commercial sectors. 

Battles with commercial interests in broadcasting have 
a long history. The Wagner-Hatfield amendment to the 
Communications Act of '34 sought to reassign 25% 
of existing radio stations to non-profit licensees. 
Defeat of the bill was permitted by a split in the public 
interest lobby. The original demand for non-profit con- 
trol of stations with the option to sell unused airtime 
was countered by broadcasters who offered free use of 
their unsold airtime to preserve commercial control of 
the stations. While some proponents of Wagner- 
Hatfield recognized this offer as a temporary response 
to temporary pressures, others, in the words of Eric 
Barnouw, felt that broadcasting "was entering a new 
and promising phase." (The Sponsor, p. 29) 

Minorities and independents have spent much of their 
time shut out of the public broadcast system. In 1978 
congressional lobbying netted for independent pro- 
ducers increased access to federal funds going to 
public television. By CPB's own admission (pp. 5 & 6 of 
the withdrawn Programming Goals and Policy of 
11-21-79), Congress mandated a "set aside" to finance 
independent productions. Even though the percentage 
of CPB's program fund going to independents is still 
being debated, similar minority gains within the same 
time period are non-existent. 

At the time Congress was debating the Public Telecom- 
munications Financing Act of 1978, the Minority Task 
Force commissioned by CPB made specific recommen- 
dations as to how the 1978 Act should address the 
needs of minorities. In their study, A Formula for 
Change, the Task Force recommended (p. 63) that Con- 
gress should "specifically earmark funds for national 
and local minority programming." Remarking on the 
"substantial portion" of federal funds the bill allocates 
for independent programming, the Task Force observed 
(p. 11) that "a large number of minority programs are in- 
dependent" and stated bleakly that minority producers 
"could possibly benefit from such a provision." The bill 
was generally labeled as addressing minority needs "in 
a very indirect way" (p. 10). One wonders why Congress 
did not try at least to earmark a fixed percentage out of 
that "substantial portion" of programming funds for 
minority independents. 

In the two years since 1978, minorities have been 
treated to severe cutbacks in the authority and financ- 
ing of CPB's Human Resources Department, to an ex- 

pensive and belated reply to A Formula for Change 

which was emphatically rejected by the Minority Task 
Force, and to a one million dollar subsidy for a "minori- 
ty SPC" that was intended only for station producers. 

Many independent producers' organizations support 
the findings of the Minority Task Force Report. Amidst 
the intense competition for federal funds, however, 
non-minority independents need to develop their public 
interest coalition with minority groups. The alliance is 
not a static situation; even minority independent pro- 
ducers could conceivably be separated out of the coali- 
tion we all enjoy. 

PBS' proposed Minority TV Lab, for example, producing 
perhaps twelve hours of programming, is designed to 
make a highly visible yet insubstantial commitment to 
programming by and for minorities. This is certainly an 
instance where PBS hopes it can satisfy minorities with 
a few concessions. But this is also an instance where 
money that will come from CPB (large corporations 
have no history of funding minority programming) will 
be administered by an organization immune to indepen- 
dent influence. PBS, in essence, is providing an incen- 
tive for a section of the independent community to 
reconsider its demands at CPB for peer panel 
judgements on programming monies. 

Many independents might unwittingly regard the 
Minority TV Lab as a "minority issue". On a certain 
level they may be right: minority independent programs 
are the ones that will get the money. But this "pocket- 
book process" for deciding independent lobbying 
strategy leads to concessions for the whole indepen- 
dent community and ultimately wears away at its power 
base. Thus, the maintenance of vaguely articulated 
"support for the Minority Task Force Report" on the 
part of independent producers' organizations can easily 
constitute a "blind spot" that can be manipulated to 
the advantage of others. 

Corporate sponsorship of programming, as a subtle 
political tool, also predates the existence of the public 
broadcast system. As a response to Senate investiga- 
tion of the $230 million profit that Dupont made on 
World War I, the corporation sponsored THE 
CAVALCADE OF AMERICA, a sort of "Dupont radio 
highlights of American history". Much like today's Con- 
nections or the National Geographic Specials, it ex- 
cluded many "unpleasant" topics to focus on an 
idealized America. 

"Absolute taboos included government projects 
such as the TVA, which the sponsor considered 
socialistic; labor history; and for a long time, the 
Negro. (The ban on Negro topics lasted until 1948, 
when the company agreed to a program on Booker 



T. Washington — who had felt that the Negro 
should 'keep his place' until better educated.)" 
Eric Barnouw, The Sponsor, p. 34 

In public television today, public tax dollars support a 
system that corporations can "skim" for high visibility. 
Corporations know, as we all do, that programming is 
the heart of the broadcast system. Although corpora- 
tions provided only 25% of the funding for national pro- 
gramming from 1975-1978, their programs were 
watched by PTV's largest audiences. Of the public 
television programs most watched between 1975-78, 
corporations funded 100% of the educational specials, 
96% of cultural series episodes, and 100% of the 
public affairs serials (see pp. 34 & 36 of chapter III, 
CPB's First Annual Program Priorities Statement). 

Removing corporate dollars from public broadcasting 
would take an amendment of the Communications Act 
of 1934. But corporate sponsorship should be publi- 
cized as a damaging element in public television. In- 
dependents, especially those whose programming is 
non-controversial, are in a perfect position to 
demonstrate poor treatment by the system, simply 
because their programming is less profitable than 
"high-ticket" cultural series. 

This kind of approach is even more important in light of 
PBS's proposed "Blue Network". Competition from 
commercial cable interests has forced the development 
of a super-slick, single-purpose network that can deliver 
a large prime time audience to corporate sponsors. The 
economics of public television are no match for 
the cable industry: cable can generate more than 
four times the revenue with a fifth of the audience. 
Cable competition can steal the public broadcast 
system's image as "alternative television" by providing 
the same general audience and programming imported 
from abroad, by developing whole channels of target 
audience programming, by giving PTV producers better 
financial arrangements, and by taking away public 
television's suburban, upscale audience. 

Those PBS member stations that receive considerable 
funds, both from their audience and from corporate 
underwriting (matched federally 1:2) are perfectly will- 
ing to stiff the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to 
compete effectively. The "Blue Network" will ask for 
five million in FY '81, growing to sixteen million in FY 
'85. In the words of PBS: 

"In judging the financial feasibility of such a five- 
year plan, the stiffest test would be to measure 
the projected 1985 expenditures against the 1979 
income. That comparison would look like this: 
...It would absorb 16 million of the 27 million 
dollars in CPB's 1979 programming fund. The 
point is this: even if there were no increases in 
any of those three funding categories by 1985, the 
five-year plan outlined would still be financially 
possible." (PTV-1 — The Blue Service, 10-15-79) 

Can those unserved by public television let CPB com- 
mit itself to this kind of long-term commitment? 

Another element of commercial broadcasting that has 
crept into public television is the membership organiza- 
tion, providing a powerful lobby and the insulation of 
self-regulation. One broadcasting lobby, known as the 
National Association of Broadcasters, is second only to 
the armaments lobby in the power it wields on Capitol 
Hill. For example, in 1971, Action for Children's Tele- 
vision began to file petitions at the Federal Trade Com- 
mission and the FCC in an attempt to ban commercial 
advertising during children's programming. The NAB 
was able to prevent any government action through 
"self-regulation", by ending on-air product sales by pro- 
gram hosts, discontinuing vitamin promotion on 
children's shows, and shortening commercial time dur- 
ing children's programs by six minutes per hour. 
Although this pleased many television reformers, the 
revenues from children's advertising increased. Adver- 
tisers were merely charging higher rates and selling 
smaller commercial slots. 

PBS also enjoys this same ability to self-regulate and 
exert powerful pressures on entities like Congress and 
CPB. One of the first actions PBS took after its forma- 
tion in 1969 was to effect strict programming and jour- 
nalistic standards that would control the content of 
NET'S productions. NET was at that time very different 
from today's WNET, and also independent of the 
system. PBS pressures upon CPB result from PBS's 
control of the station interconnection. At one point, 
there was actually a stated "partnership agreement" 
that outlined the powers each organization had. 
Because CPB is prevented from distributing its produc- 
tions to the stations, it is dependent on PBS for the 
survival of its programming. CPB needs to keep PBS 

Of the 267 PTV stations that make up public television, 
only a handful control the direction of PBS. Larry Hall 
states that the 73 privately directed "community" sta- 
tions receive about 54% of all public broadcasting 
revenues. The top dozen reach half of the entire public 
television audience. The number one station, WNET, 
gets about a quarter of its funds from corporations and 
says that it produces about 30% of each year's national 
programming schedule. The few stations, then, that 
decide policy for PBS, have some obvious interests to 
protect (p. 184, Telecommunications Policy and the 
Citizen, Timothy R. Haight). 

Not all stations enjoy their PBS membership. Smaller 
stations are often unable to capitalize on the corporate 
money they could receive as producers of national pro- 
gramming. In a submission to CPB's five-year planning 
effort, the station manager at the University of Utah's 
KUED wrote: 

"The clamor for dollars at the national level for 
programming, for satellite distribution, for na- 
tional promotion, and for an unending list of 
things that are needed and necessary have drain- 
ed the resources of the stations to the point that 
little local programming can be funded with the 
dollars that remain. . . . The stations are not a 


monolith, but rather a very diverse group with very 
diverse needs. PBS cannot represent nor should it 
be expected to represent all of the programming 
needs of the stations. They may be in a position 
to represent the national program views of a sta- 
tion, but they cannot represent the local produc- 
tion needs of KUED." (Letter to John Dimling, 
CPB 12-23-79) 

KZLN-TV of Harlingen, Texas is scheduled to go on air 
in early 1981. It will be the nation's first community- 
based, minority-owned public television station. Given 
PBS's neglect of Chicano and Hispanic programming, 
the national organization will be of little use to those 
who intend to serve the community in the lower Rio 
Grande valley. 

The one impression of unity that the stations convey is, 
oddly enough, at their yearly Station Program Coop- 
erative (SPC). The SPC is a process of subsidized and 
prorated group buying for national program proposals. 
The cost to a station for a particular series is determin- 
ed by the size of a station's Community Service Grant 
and the number of stations that buy the programming. 
This is the method that most stations use to buy public 
affairs programming. 

The effect this has is to fund well-known and generally 
liked programming. This is a disappointment for new 
programs and independent producers. Their work is 
often cut out in the selection process and never viewed. 

What can be done to get consideration for independent 
proposals for national series is not clear. 

The PBS design for the SPC, as laissez-faire as it may 
seem, is structured to confirm the programming 
strength of public television's major producers. Pro- 
grams like The MacNeil — Lehrer Report, that are 
offered year after year and are consistently one of 
the top programs bought, should be handled outside 
the SPC. No station manager needs to see another pro- 
posal or pilot for Nova. Buying proven popular pro- 
gramming could take place by mail or the DACS system 
prior to the SPC. The present character of the SPC 
festivities is more a celebration of how great the 
system already is, rather than the forum for innovation 
in national public television that it could be. 

In the months ahead, independents, who are now learn- 
ing how to utilize the Corporation for Public Broadcast- 
ing, must develop a strategy for influencing the other 
elements of the system. Generally, there is a need to 
solidify a power base through an active coalition with 
other public media advocacy groups. This effort needs 
to be actively pursued and well-publicized to be effec- 
tive. In addition, independents need to better under- 
stand the other forces within the system: PBS and the 
stations; and the forces from outside: corporate under- 
writing and cable competition. This understanding will 
serve to protect the victories already won at CPB and 
eventually to expand public access to our public air- 



The Federal Communications Commission has settled 
a 15-year struggle over control of an NBC television af- 
filiate in Jackson, Miss., by approving the award of the 
license to a black-controlled group. 

Approval of the agreement among four contending bid- 
ders for control of WLBT was made by Lenore G. Ehrig, 
an administrative law judge. It ends 10 years of legal 
maneuvering since the station's license was vacated in 
1969 by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. 

The ruling today represented a triumph for Mississippi 
blacks and the communications office of the United 
Church of Christ, who brought the original legal 
challenge in 1964. 

The license of WLBT was set aside because the Court 
of Appeals ruled valid charges that the station had fail- 
ed to serve the needs of Mississippi black citizens, 
even though they constituted 43 percent of the popula- 
tion in the viewing area. 

Among specialists in broadcasting the WLBT case is 
considered historic. It marked the first time that the 
commission, under direct pressure from the court here, 
entertained a license challenge from anyone other than 
broadcasters or others with a purely economic interest. 

New Era of Sensitivity 

Also, the case marked the first time that a license was 
lifted on ground that a public interest had failed to be 
served. It is said to have touched off a new era of 
heightened sensitivity by broadcasters to community 

In the award of the station license this week, Judge 
Ehrig chose TV3, a largely local Jackson group that is 
51 percent black and that is headed by Aaron Henry, 
one of the original challengers, who is head of the state 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored 

Everett C. Parker, who helped to start the detailed 
monitoring of WLBT's programs in the early 1960's as 
head of the communications office of the United 
Church of Christ still holds that job. 

In a statement today, he hailed the decision as "a re- 
sounding victory over deep-seated racial discrimination 
and a boon to minorities who have long been second- 
class citizens in television and radio." 

"At last we have a black-controlled network affiliate," 
he said. "We hope this is the first step toward 
establishing a strong minority influence in network 

:» mimmi 



'Twas Indian Summer, and all through the Kitchen 
Not a dancer was stirring, not even a smidgen. 
The mikes were hung over the table with care 
In hopes that Saint CPB soon would be there. 
The indies were straggling in from their beds 
While visions of planning grants danced in their 

And we in our neckties (from mothballs unwrapped) 
Were all settled in for a long morning's rap. 
Then up on the dais arose such a clatter 
That the Kitchen staff peeked in to ask, 

"What's the matter?" 
When who should appear, amid catcalls and hoots, 
But a team of execs in their three-piece wool suits, 
With a grim-looking leader, all dressed up so fine, 
That I knew in a moment it must be George Stein. 
More rapid than eagles his excuses came 
As he (craving our sympathy) called them by name: 
"Poor ratings! Tight budgets! Unclear definitions! 
I don't know your address! 

I don't make those decisions! 
And besides, there's nobody to answer the phone! 
So go away, go away, leave me alone!" 


Then out from their brown leather briefcases fat 

Came statistics beloved by each bureaucrat, 

Which they raised o'er their heads, like a shield from 

our ire, 
As they leaped from the frying pan into the fire. 
Poor George! He appeared more bewildered than 

And I pitied the fellow in spite of my spleen. 
He wore a long beard, but his bearlike appearance 
Seemed far too well-fed to excite our forebearance 
Until he asked softly (and stifling a sob), 
"Is there anyone here who can give me a job?" 
So we put up our weapons, and laid it out plain 
(For berating him further was clearly in vain), 
And got right to the point, put our question in black 
And white: "Tell us, George, 

what you've got in that sack." 
"Alas, independents, your suspicions are true: 
Among all of these goodies, there's nothing for you." 
Then he cast his damp eyes sadly down at his burden, 
and took to his heels ere we could get a word in; 
But I heard him exclaim, as his team disappeared, 
"Good luck to a few; to the rest — try next year!" 

Continuation of Discussion on CPB Draft 
Proposal Held at The Kitchen, October 16, 1979 

(For Part I, see THE INDEPENDENT, 
Vol. 2 No. 9, November 1979) 

Ralph Arlyck: I've been making films for eight years. In that 
time I've made six films; two have had CPB money and four 
didn't. The two with CPB money didn't get on TV. The four 
that didn't DID get on public television. I'm not sure what to 
conclude from that. 

John Reilly: You should get a contract with CPB that within a 
year you have to deliver a finished work that could go out on 
the system. You have the option of not going through PBS if 
PBS sits on it for more than a reasonable period of time. Six 
months is too long. If they sit on it for two months without 
reacting to it, you should have the option of going around PBS 
and offering it directly to the stations or to EEN (Eastern 
Educational Network) or to the other networks around the 
country or to the satellite. CPB should help with that notion. 
We have to build in a lot of options and a hell of a lot of 

DeeDee Halleck: There's been a lot of talk about linkage be- 
tween the independent and the station. I think it's instructive 
to look at our competition — to see what type of linkage ex- 
ists with the kinds of shows that do go out. If we look, for in- 
stance, at a series called Feelings with Dr. Lee Salk, the 
linkage there is very clear: it's Hoffman-LaRoche, the drug 
company, makers of Valium, who are at this time under a great 
deal of pressure from the legislators at hearings in Congress 

investigating the addiction of 15% of the American population 
to Valium. They are sponsoring Feelings, and are making sure 
that it gets out on every PTV station. They put out brochures, 
and they follow through. If there are any questions about con- 
tent, they have legal assistance and staff to take care of any 
difficulties and make sure that the show gets on the air. The 
question is, who is going to be our Hoffman-LaRoche? Either 
CPB, or the panels, or a Center for Independents, has to pro- 
vide that kind of back-up support. 

George Stein: The thing that will make sure your work gets on 
the air is the quality of your product. 

Halleck: Have you ever checked out Feelings? It's not exactly 
a high point of broadcasting. (Laughter) 

Stein: CPB is not going to tell the stations what to put on the 

Halleck: But somehow we need to get the kind of support that 
Masterpiece Theatre gets from Mobil, and Feelings gets from 

Stein: We just don't have the kind of money for promotion 
that Gulf does, that Mobil does. 
Halleck: Should they determine what gets on the air? 
Stein: They don't decide what gets on the air. 


Tad Turner: They make it damned attractive. 

Reilly: Any person can go to Western Union and buy time (on 
the satellite). There are eight transponders. 

Henry Baker: But we should be able to go to CPB. It's a public 
entity. An individual can go around to all the organization 
structures and get it for themselves. But the idea is that if 
CPB is buying a chunk of that, independents should be able to 
go there and get advice and information on allocation and 
funds. The brokers are just capitalizing on the information 
that they have centralized. You have to pay them and they 
have to make a profit. CPB could provide us that service at 

Halleck: I would hope that in fulfilling the intent of the legisla- 
tion, CPB can see to it that the information from this meeting 
gets out. I just don't want to see the money coming from pro- 
gramming funds. We've had a lot of meetings in the past year, 
and I'm afraid they all get racked up as "money to in- 

Vicki Gholson: In that vein, I would stress that money to set 
up the panels, fees for the panelists (at reasonable profes- 
sional rates) and money for promotion should come out of 
CPB general operating expenses, not out of programming 
funds for independents. 

Jon Hall: Would it be possible for CPB to do some sort of 
marketing for programs that they do fund? 

Stein: One thing that we're thinking of doing is to provide a 
modest facility at CPB. David Stewart had the concept and 
used the term "Contact Service for Foreign Markets". We 
want to pursue the marketing aspects with a lot more vigor. 

Gholson: In Cannes (the TV Market) just about every aspect of 
that market was represented, except for American indepen- 
dents. Perhaps CPB could give partial sponsorship to send a 
representative. I know there was considerable interest from 
many countries in seeing that kind of work. I was dismayed to 
see that one of the "minority" programs presented there was 
Soul with Stevie Wonder as guest. It was an excellent pro- 
gram, but it's only a hundred years old. 

Stein: I'm not familiar with that festival. 

Gholson: It is a television marketplace. U.S. public television 
was represented by KQED, KCET, WGBH and WNET. 

Karen Thomas: I think Input is supposed to do some of that 
for independents. 

Stein: I know we put a lot of money into that, but I'm not 
familiar with the results. 

Gholson: In the past two years I and many other in- 
dependents, out of responsibility and concern, have been in- 
volved in research, public speaking, preparing papers, sitting 
on panels, to try to make changes in this process. But when 
that concern and that information is not respected, it just 
comes back in some philosophical report. 

Stein: Are you talking about the Minority Task Force Report? 

Gholson: I'm talking about that, and the Update Task Force 
Report, and the Carnegie Commission, and the testimonies to 
Congress and the Senate, and the reports to the CPB board 
and to the Rockefeller Conference. There has been a great 
amount of work, above and beyond production by a lot of in- 
dependents. I've heard the two of you sit there and say, "Give 
us specific recommendations, give us ideas." The problem is 
that when the information is given, the policy as you go back 

and spell it out somehow gets lost. So we are always forced 
into a reactionary situation. 

Stein: One of the greatest stresses of my job is always falling 
short. I could synthesize everything you all have said and 
somebody is bound to be disappointed. We are involved in a 
business where we have not nearly enough money to do the 

Gholson: The problem is a bit more basic than dollars and 

John Cohen: I had one of my independent projects on WGBH 
on the Nova series earlier this year. I understood that they had 
the desire to utilize the work of independents, but my ex- 
perience shows that they couldn't deal with the implication of 
what that means. 

The film I did in Peru was based on 20 years of experience and 
research concerned with the subject. I am fully aware of the 
needs of anthropologists for accuracy in reporting this kind of 
information. Yet Nova rewrote and deliberately overrode my 
research, my advice and my expressed requests. 

They used techniques which I find questionable in a 
respected science series. They used narration from one scene 
over a totally unrelated other scene. There was the presenta- 
tion of a very important myth that I included in my film. They 
took the liberty to have someone else retranslate the myth 
and completely change the meaning of it. This was done 
without my knowledge. I'm the one who has to deal with the 
anthropologists, not them. 

They placed wedding music over a funeral. The recording was 
done in another part of Peru, entirely unrelated to the subject. 
I had specifically forbidden such use when they asked me. 
The source of that music was recordings I had made in 1964. 
They used it in violation of my rights and wishes, since it was 
not part of my agreement with them. I was not allowed to com- 
ment on the fine cut — I was shown it after the mix was done. 

Stein: You should get yourself a lawyer, next time you make a 

Steve Symonds (CPB Lega Department): Did you have a con- 

Cohen: Yes, but there were many undefined areas in that con- 
tract. They considered that they were acquiring the film and 
that they could make. certain adjustments to conform to their 
program format. There was no mention of a rough cut or fine 
cut, but there were verbal statements to me — that I could see 
it and make changes. 

Stein: I guess it's a learning experience. But when you're 
dealing with public television stations or anybody in the 
world, you should get yourself on paper and have it examined 
by somebody you trust who's experienced in contract law. 

Cohen: I feel they had a lot of cards they kept to themselves. I 
wish there could be a way that those cards could be out on 
the table. 

Symonds: If you're an attorney working for an organization, 
your job is to get the maximum value for your dollar. Screw 
you. . .if you're dumb enough to walk into that organization 
not knowing you can negotiate, they're going to take advan- 
tage of you. 

Gholson: But CPB has to design some kind of system that 
can protect these people. You are dealing with people who 
have been alienated, misrepresented, and exploited. 

Transcribed and edited by DeeDee Halleck. 



Alan Jacobs 

AJ: How are you planning to distribute THE WAR AT 
HOME in theaters, when practically all theatrical ex- 
hibitors are convinced that documentaries are death in 

GS: I know that the industry has a great built-in prej- 
udice against documentary features and if you mention 
those two words to any distributor he'll nearly have a 
heart attack. Yesterday we screened the film for one of 
the major studio heads. He said, "Boys," I was with my 
partner, Barry Brown, "I want to tell you something; I 
want you to get it straight. I guarantee you that there is 
not a theater in the city that will ever take that film. It's 
good, some college campuses might want to see it, but 
it's not for theaters." And this is funny because we had 
just come from the New Yorker Theater, of the Walter 
Reade Theater organization, and they had told us they 
were 90% sure they would take the film. And they gave 
us a very good deal. But that is the attitude. That 


HEARTS AND MINDS, because it did not recoup its 
negative costs, and did not do well from their stand- 
point, put a death knell, even though it won an 
Academy Award, on feature distribution of documen- 

What we're trying to say with the Independent Feature 
Project, and with THE WAR AT HOME and with JOE 
AND MAXI and with other films, is that not only are 
alternative feature films that are made as documen- 
taries good fare for audiences — alternative fare 
perhaps — but we're also going to promote our own 
films in an alternative way. That will help create a con- 
stituency for independently produced films. 

AJ: How are you going to do that? 

GS: Well, I think NORTHERN LIGHTS and the people 
who worked with that film, particularly John Hanson 
and Rob Nilsson, have really set a trend by working 


with community groups and building audiences around 
national constituencies for a film, and by really being 
able to spend a good deal of time after the making of 
the film ends, to ensure that the film has a life in the 
theatre. Unfortunately, until recently, independent pro- 
ducers were sort of stuck answering the question, 
"What are you going to do about distribution?" by say- 
ing, "Well, I hope it will go on PBS, or we're trying to 
make a deal with PBS," which is nice, because you can 
reach a very large audience that way. The last film we did 
was seen by millions of people, which was the Joe Mc- 
Carthy documentary — AN AMERICAN ISM: JOE MC- 
CARTHY. And that was a new experience after having 
produced community video programs. But now I think 
that the plans we have for the near future are very ex- 
citing. We're going to build, from the ground up, an 
alternative network across the country, not just in NYC 
or specific communities. I predict that within a year and 
a half there will be a minimum of fifty cities that are 
organized to exhibit independently produced documen- 
taries and features. 

AJ: How do you convince a theatrical exhibitor that 
what you're talking about is going to work? 

GS: We were in a very odd position, because with THE 
WAR AT HOME we had a film that was obviously well- 
timed with all the Vietnam films — like APOCALYPSE 
because it was a documentary, there was a built-in prej- 
udice on the part of the exhibitors. We were very for- 
tunate to work initially with Gary Meyer, who runs the 
Parallax Theatre chain and has 20 theatres across the 
country, including the one in which we wanted to open 
in our own home town. Because I'd made another film 
that he'd heard about, that had been shown, it wasn't as 
though I was calling strictly from left field. I got him to 
book our film, sight unseen, three months in advance 
so it could go on a schedule in Madison. He figured it 
would probably do well there, since it was a hometown 
story. He scheduled it in Minneapolis and Milwaukee as 
well, which were seen as test markets. 

I think we surprised theatre exhibitors in Madison, 
because every performance for the first 3 nights in the 
500-seat theatre were sold out with lines around the 
block. What really freaked him out was that the after- 
noon performances, on a perfectly clear fall Sunday, 
were 85 to 90% sold out. 

AJ: Who did the promotion? Who got those crowds 

GS: The hometown crowds weren't so hard because, 
for the people in Madison, it was almost like a home 
movie. They could see all the people who are really well 
known — the radical mayor, Carleton Armstrong, who's 
been in prison for 8 years and was just recently paroled, 
and a lot of just friends. 

We decided to open the film in mid-October because it 
was the tenth anniversary of the Madison moratorium, 
October 15. And November 15 was the tenth anniver- 
sary of the national moratorium in Washington. We 
were trying to set up some kind of showcase that would 
help bring out feeling for the film. We did in fact show 

the film at the JFK Center, at the AFI theatre on 
November 15. 

We had the opening in Madison, the next week we 
opened in Boston, then in Minneapolis and Wilwaukee. 
In every single instance we were working with a com- 
munity group. In Minneapolis we worked with a very 
broad-based anti-nuclear coalition, called the Northern 
Sun Alliance, that had worked with John Hanson 
[NORTHERN LIGHTS] when he opened his film there. In 
Boston we worked with an alternative exhibitor. 
Because the film was so successful and got such a 
good response from the press, we actually got our first 
continuous run there. That was at the Orson Welles 
Cinema, where it played for five weeks. 

AJ: How did you do at the Welles? 

GS: We did fantastic — the first week it broke the 
house records of the Orson Welles Number 3. And then 
we started to creep into Variety and things like this. 
Then we opened the film in Milwaukee. There's a case 
where we had done a lot of organizing — for five weeks, 
just for a 2-day run. In 2 days 3,000 people saw the film 
and it made over $9,000. 

A J: Were the successful runs in the smaller cities the 
basis for the decision to open in NY? What convinced a 
NY distributor that a documentary about anti-war activi- 
ty in Madison, Wisconsin ten years ago would be an in- 
teresting commercial venture? 

GS: We knew we had to go in steps, and Madison 
wasn't really even a step since it was a hometown 
show. Minneapolis was a good step; Milwaukee was a 
step; the Welles was a great step. We have received ex- 
traordinary press. There was yet to be an unfavorable 
review out of 25 or 30, including Variety who more or 
less said that they thought our film was better than 
APOCALYPSE NOW and COMING HOME, which is a lit- 
tle bit much. But the point is that we had a lot of 
momentum building, and then we went ahead and 
decided that after our last opening we would go ahead 
and blow the film up to 35mm. 

AJ: Do you think blowing up your film to 35mm makes 
it more attractive to exhibitors? 

GS: Most exhibitors do not want to go through the has- 
sle of showing 16mm because they're not set up for it, 
and that's a real problem. I would rather show it in 
16mm in some ways, because there's no picture cut-off 
and you don't have to screw around with the aspect 
ratio. On the other hand, like in Biograph in Chicago 
when we were at the Chicago Film Festival, they pro- 
jected it in 16mm and every one of the 800 seats was 
sold. We've also realized that the film is much more 
likely to be damaged if it's shown in 16mm, and the 
sound is also poorer in 16mm, which can be a problem. 
Even if they have a good projector, a lot of times the 
systems don't jive. The other problem is that you wind 
up paying extra money, 9 times out of 10, to have pro- 
jectors brought in and have projectionists set up for 5, 
6 or 7 hours. I'm not sure how much most projectionists 
really respect 16mm; it's kind of how we feel about 
Super 8. , 3 


AJ: Is that why you decided to blow up to 35mm? 

GS: We had to blow it up, because you can't show your 
film in Iowa (which is probably where we'll show it 
someday) with 16mm unless you want to take it to one 
city at a time, carrying the projectors with you. 

to get funding from the NEH because of Wisconsin ETV 
Network support, to get foundation support with them 
doing some of the fundraising for us. In fact, the 
Wisconsin ETV Network has consistently supported 
the work of independent producers, and deserves a lot 
of credit for their foresight and guts. 

AJ: Have you previewed the film for television? 

GS: PBS already has the rights to it, and we've been 
going through a lengthy discussion as to when they're 
going to show it. I think we've finally moved them out of 
1980. It was produced in cooperation with Educational 
TV in Wisconsin, however, because of some of the pro- 
gress that a lot of groups have made, particularly Peter 
Adair getting permission not only to show WORD IS 
OUT theatrically, but to distribute it for a year before it 
ever aired on PBS, we expect the room to realize our 
potential distribution. 

If they were to take a hard line against theatrical 
distribution prior to their air date, then it's probably not 
worth working with PBS, because you're slitting your 
own throat. It's tough enough if you've sold the 
American broadcast rights, not to be able to go ahead 
and try and sell syndication rights before it's aired on 
HBO or even ABC. 

AJ: Were they asking for the rights to broadcast it 
before you distribute it? 

GS: It was not specified. It was all so complicated that 
when we went to them — we thought we were produc- 
ing a four-hour film, an epic. Then we changed our 
minds and decided we just couldn't have a film that 
long. We came up with a two-hour version, a fast and 
dirty rough cut, lifting the best sections, but that didn't 
work. At that point our earlier contracts became ques- 
tionable, because we now realized we were going to 
produce the best shot for both. So, finally we've just 
about come to a completion, where they know if they 
want to get the film from us, delivered on schedule, 
they have to hand us a letter from PBS Programming 
saying they will not air this film in 1980. 

NORTHERN LIGHTS has already been postponed 
twice, because even if it had been shown the second 
time it was supposed to be scheduled, the film would 
no longer have a theatrical market. I don't think there 
are too many people who would disagree with the fact 
that a PBS showing would kill your theatrical market. If 
people see it on PBS they say, "Why should I pay for it 
in a theatre?" and also "It'll be on again." Even though 
it took me about a year and a half to realize that, it's 
very clear now. Nobody is going to touch your film if it's 
shown on PBS. No theatrical distributor. 

AJ: // you hadn't been prepared to get behind your film 
and distribute it yourself, what would have happened to 
your film? 

GS: There's no doubt in my mind, we would have had 
very little success if we weren't willing to promote the 
film as hard as we did. Once your film is finished, 
however many years it takes to make it, that's when the 
life of the film begins. If you're not willing to work to 
promote your own film, you're going to be in for some 
rude awakenings. I mean the film just isn't going to go 
anywhere. If it does go somewhere, it's going to take a 
lot longer, and won't be as successful. 

When we show our film out in Portland, Oregon in a few 
weeks, I am going out there, certainly for the press 
screenings and to hang around to talk to the communi- 
ty that's supporting our effort. I'm getting the exhibitor 
to pay for my airfare. It was very easy to convince him 
that if I went out there and met with the press, we'd get 
a lot more coverage. If I met with the people who are 
supporting it, we'd do a lot better. It would be well 
worth it, and in his interests, to have me out there to 
promote my own film. In Boston, when we opened the 
film at the Welles, we convinced them that it was 
necessary to have 2 organizers: one who would work 
with the community and the political groups, and 
another person who would deal with the media, hired 
full-time as part of the advertising budget. And it went 
into the budget, so we spent less money on advertising 
and more money on getting out the word-of-mouth, talk- 
ing to groups and making sure the media was well 
taken care of. And it paid off. So we were looking for 
both things — to have full-time organizers and 
whatever expenses I incurred put on as part of the 
advertising budget, and to spend a little less. You can 
throw so many thousands of dollars away and get very 
little response — I mean an extra couple of inches in 
the papers. In any market, it is outrageously expensive, 
but if you put in into human resources, human 
energy. . . . 

It has been the thrill of our lives to see the film in 

On the other hand, I don't think our film would have 
been made without assistance from PBS. We were able 




FEATHERS IN THEIR CAPS. . .Creative Artists Public 
Service Program (CAPS) recently announced the recip- 
ients of its 1979-80 grants cycle for video. $49,000 was 
awarded to a group of 12 video artists from a pool of 
179 applicants in this category. 

We would like to congratulate the following CAPS win- 
ners: AIVF Board member Maxi M. Cohen, Mark J. 
Brady, Barbara Buckner, Tom De Witt, Ernest Gusella, 
Sara Stever Hornbacher, Les Levine, Anthony D. 
Ramos, Ira Schneider, Vibeke Sorensen, Arthur K. 
Tsuchiya and Edin Velez. 

Of the 12 honored recipients, 5 were previously award- 
ed CAPS grants. Composing this year's judging panel 
were John Camelio, Doris Chase, Juan Downey, Gunilla 
Mallory Jones, Joan Logue and Antonio Muntadas. Ann 
Eugenia Volkes served as consultant. 

A video show of work by the CAPS recipients will travel 
through New York State. It is being made available for 
viewing to video centers under the auspices of Com- 
munity Service Program of CAPS. 

Filmmaker Jack Willis, whose last film was PAUL 
ed $400,000 from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities to do a three-hour film on the history of the 
civil rights movement in the american South. Jack con- 
fided that he's been bombarded with calls from indies 
interested in working on the production, but already 
has his crew lined up. 

The Institute of the Black World, a Black think-tank in 
Atlanta, GA. has been awarded a research/development 
grant from the National Endowment on the Humanities 
to develop a TV series based on the manuscript THE 
Dr. Vincent Harding. Filmmaker St. Clair Bourne has 
been named Project Director and Executive Producer of 
the proposed TV series, which he described as "sort of 
a more political ROOTS." 

A JOB WELL DONE: Liz Oliver's handling of this 
season's INDEPENDENT FOCUS series has sparked 
much outrage in the independent community. This has 
led to the formation of a coalition of angry community 
groups and independents which sponsored a recent 
press conference, much talk of protests, a possible 
license challenge, and a massive letter-writing cam- 
paign against WNET's station policies. So what was the 
response from WNET top brass? They promoted Oliver 
to Manager of Independent Acquisitions. A move as 
tactless as it is revealing. . . 

BIDDER DILEMMA: National Black Network and Inner 
City Broadcasting Corp., two New York-based, minority 
owned broadcasters which serve black communities, 
are taking a stern approach toward getting access to 
cable in the boroughs. They recently asked City leaders 

"to reject [current] bids for cable TV franchises as not 
being demonstrative of significant minority group par- 
ticipation," urging that the bidding process for cable 
franchises in Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn be re- 


named new TV programmer in charge of the Kitchen 
Center's video viewing room. He plans to broaden the 
scope of their video programs, as well as improve 
facilities at the screening room, "bringing them up to 
broadcast level". Tom is continuing his long involve- 
ment with the Kitchen coordinating their media produc- 
tions work. 

Is it possible for a young and dynamic independent 
filmmaker to find happiness outside AIVF? We cer- 
tainly hope so. Rich Berkowitz (a.k.a. Vinnie Preziosi) 
left us after two years of undaunted service at the end 
of December to pursue his filmmaking career. We wish 
Rich much success and a lot of nachas to our favorite 

If you've been to the AIVF loft recently you may have 
noticed a new face at the front desk. Our new admin- 
istrative assistant is Judy Ray. Judy, whose future 
plans include independent feature production, brings to 
us a varied background of experience in the arts, 
publishing and state politics. We are very pleased to 
have her working with us. 

NEW YORK TO FRISCO: Here's hoping that Peter Adair 
will hurry back to the Big Apple. Peter, who has spent 
the past several months working in NYC, has now 
returned home to San Francisco. We want to thank him 
for his support at AIVF meetings, our November forum 
on distribution, his article in the Dec/Jan issue of the 
Independent, and for speaking at the meeting with CPB 
at the Kitchen last October. 

The board of directors of Pittsburgh Film-Makers, Inc. 

has announced the appointment of Marilyn Levin as ex- 
ecutive director. Levin will be replacing Robert Haller 
who has moved to New York City to assume the direc- 
torship of Anthology Film Archives. 

IFP REPORTS: The Independent Feature Project's next 
regional meeting will take place on Tuesday, Feb. 26, at 
2:30. Items on the agenda are the definition of the role 
of regional filmmaking for the N.Y. metropolitan area, 
and discussion of organizing plans for the independent. 
For information on location and future meetings, con- 
tact the IFP at 674-6655. 

GOVERNMENT FILMS: We fished this out of the Great 
Lakes Film Forum Newsletter and thought the info 
should be passed on to our members: 

Listed below are government agencies that, from time 
to time, bid out jobs on film and video production. If 


The Column 

you are interested in getting on the bid lists, write or 
call the agency you are interested in, and ask for an ap- 
plication to get onto the "bidders mailing list". 

Defense Supply Service Director 
Washington Office 
Secretary of the Army 
Washington, DC 20310 

Director of Procurement and Production 
U.S. Army Missile Command 
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35809 

Office Administrative Services 
Procurement Division 
US Dept. of Commerce 
Washington, DC 20230 

US Information Agency 

Contract and Procurement Division 

Washington, DC 20547 

Assistant Regional Commissioner 

US Customs Service 

Dept of the Treasury 

55 East Monroe 

Suite 1501 

Chicago, III. 60603 

Contract and Procurement 
Internal Revenue Service 
Dept. of the Treasury 
Washington, DC 20226 

Regional Director of Business Affairs 
Business Service Center 
General Services Administration 
230 So. Dearborn 
Chicago, III. 60604 

Procurement Division 
Office Admin. Services 
Dept. of Commerce 
Washington, DC 20230 

Contracts and Procurement 
Federal Highway Admin. 
Dept. of Transportation 
400 7th St. 
Washington, DC 20235 


Lewis Research Center 
21000 Brockpart Rd. 
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Small Business Admin. 
Procurement & Supply 
1441 L Street NW 
Washington, DC 20416 

The GLFF (815 N. Cass Street, Milwaukee, Wl., 53202) is 
a non-profit organization formed to encourage and pro- 
mote indie filmmaking in the Great Lakes region. 


BY GEORGE! Filmmaker George Nieremberg is current- 
ly negotiating a theatrical release in New York City for 
his lively documentary, NO MAPS ON MY TAPS. His 


film, which focuses on the performances and 
reminiscences of three old-time Harlem hoofers, just 
completed an extremely successful run at the Central 
Square Cinema in Boston. Several of us at AIVF recent- 
ly caught a screening of the film and have been tapping 
our toes ever since. 

PRESUMED INNOCENT, A videodocumentary by Stefan Moore 
and Claude Beller, will be broadcast Thursday, December 13, at 
10 p.m. on WNET/Thirteen. 

Selections for the New York Visual Anthropology 
Center's regular film series, "NYVAC at the Cayman", 
which begins Feb. 8 and runs through June, will feature 
ethnographic film classics, documentaries on cultures 
throughout the world, anthropological views of contem- 
porary America and recent work. Among the films 
NYVAC is presenting are Donn Pennebaker's and Chris 
Hegedus' THE ENERGY WAR: FILIBUSTER on March 7, 
and Marva Nabili's THE SEALED SOIL, about the dilem- 
ma of an 18-year-old Iranian woman. Also featured is 
Charles Burnett's KILLER OF SHEEP, which will launch 
the first of NYVAC's 4 programs on Black Film/Black 
Video. For more information, (212) 777-6908. 

VIDEO VIEW-POINTS 1980: Independent videomakers 
talk about and show their work. Critics discuss the 
medium. Tuesday evenings, 7:30 pm, Founders' Room, 
sixth floor, 11 West 53 St., NYC 10019. Feb. 19, Stefan 
Moore and Claude Beller, "Access to the Air"; Feb. 26, 
Gary Hill, "Processual Video;" March 4, John Sturgeon, 
"Video: Art as Alchemy;" and March 25, Nam June Paik, 
"Random Access Video." Tickets are free. 

Mitchell Kriegman's audio project, THE TELEPHONE 
STORIES, Sat. Mar. 1 through Sun. Mar. 30; five video- 
tapes by Nam June Paik, Tues. Feb. 26 through Mar. 2; 
three films by Jonas Mekas, Tues. Mar. 4 through Sun. 
Mar. 16; and Jill Godmilow's and Judy Collins' ANTONIA: 
A PORTRAIT OF THE WOMAN, Tues. Feb. 5 through 
Sun. Feb. 10. For more information: (212) 794-0630. 

The Column 

Within the next month, three documentaries by in- 
dependent producers will explode a myth held sacred 
by theatre-owners and distributors all over the country. 
The idea that documentaries are "death to the 
theatres" is being put to the test with the grand en- 
trance into NYC commercial theatres of Maxi Cohen 
and Joel Gold's JOE AND MAXI, Ira Wohl's BEST BOY, 
and Barry Brown and Glenn Silber's THE WAR AT 

BEST BOY, a film by Ira Wohl, opens Feb. 29 at the Sutton, 57th 
between 2nd and 3rd. and THE WAR AT 

HOME will be at the New Yorker I (2409 Broadway/at 
88th St.) starting on March 19. (See accompanying ar- 
ticles in this issue.) 

JOE AND MAXI, an absorbing drama, focuses on the 
relationship of a young woman with her father. It ex- 
plores the world of Joe Cohen, a self-made man, recent- 
ly widowed as he attempts to rebuild his life in Cape 
May, N.J. JOE AND MAXI will open at the Greenwich I 
Theatre (97 Greenwich Ave.) on March 14, under the 
newly renovated theatre's new policy of first-run films. 

Maxi excitedly informed us that "The film will continue 
to run as long as box office grosses are up. This will be 
an important deal for other independent docs., because 
if we do well in the first few weeks, more films like this 
will be booked." She added, "Anyone who wants to 
help with promotion for the opening should contact 
me. . .fast." 


CABLE D (Manhattan Cable/Teleprompter) presents 
COMMUNICATION UPDATE, a series on telecommunication 
issues and the independent producer. The half-hour program 
will appear twice weekly on Mondays at 5:30 and Wednesday 
at midnight. The series is produced by Liza Bear and Michael 
McClard through the Center for New Art Activities. 

The upcoming schedule is as follows: 




low-power transmission. 






APRIL 7 & 9 — ALEX SUSTEROVIC, "non-alignment" 


SATURDAY MARCH 1st, 9:30 — RAPE TRIAL, produced by 
Italian television, was the first feminist documentary on rape 
to be broadcast nationally in Italy. 


The National Association of Lesbian and Gay Film- 
makers and the National Gay Task Force have joined 
with other feminist, lesbian and gay organizations in 

protesting WINDOWS, a feature film from United Ar- 
tists. Producer Michael Lobell, director Gordon Williw 
and screenwriter Barry Seigel have produced, under the 
guise of a "romantic thriller, a film which perpetuates 
and sensationalizes the most pernicious lies about les- 
bianism and rape. 

The plot features a psychotic lesbian killer who hires a 
man to rape her best friend with whom she is secretly 
in love. The equation of lesbianism with psychotic 
violence is an old and tired stereotype. 

The film's treatment of rape is equally unreal. Violence 
against women has reached epidemic proportions and 
is still increasing. A congressional subcommittee 
estimated that rape affects between a quarter and a 
third of the female population in this country and every 
woman lives with the threat of rape. The fact is that 
rape is a crime committed against women by men. The 
depiction in WINDOWS of rape as a crime instigated by 
one woman against another is a monstrous lie, a gross 
misrepresentation of lesbianism and of rape. 

It would be cynical to argue that this film portrays only 
"one sick individual" and not all lesbians; for the fact 
remains that other, contrasting images of lesbians do 
not exist in Hollywood films. We think that most 
viewers will dismiss this distasteful film as an insult to 
their intelligence. But we have to respond, nonetheless, 
if only in memory of the pain and discrimination so 
many of us have suffered because of twisted images of 
what it means to be a homosexual as perpetuated in 
films like WINDOWS. 


This month's Board meeting covered a number of issues im- 
portant to AIVF members. 

The first order of business was health insurance for the 
membership. Len Klaftner spoke to the board about his plan 
which included a $1000.00 minimum — $10,000.00 limit 
catastrophe insurance. The board then discussed other plans 
and decided to hold further discussion until more information 
could be obtained. 

Next the Board discussed the move to new quarters at 625 
Broadway. A new space for AIVF offices has been found and 
shortly the lease will be signed and the move will begin. In 
order to raise funds for the move, a benefit will be held. The 
benefit was then discussed. 

Alan Mitosky told the Board about this year's Short Film 
Showcase entries and asked for suggestions to increase the 
number of films submitted before the next selection was 

Mark Weiss spoke to the Board about the controversy over the 
peer panel selections for WNET's Independent Focus series. 
Weiss said that the coalition formed over the controversy — 
wherein four of the films the peer panel recommended were 
not accepted by WNET — is now doing a complete study of 
WNET programming to see if there are existing audiences 
being denied. 




A new festival was launched in France recently: The 
1979) opened in Nantes with selections from Africa, 
Asia, and Latin America. The festival is a cultural event 
based on public screenings of both 16mm and 35mm, 
feature and medium length films. The screenings are 
followed by discussions with the filmmakers, to bring 
together and confront, through both fiction and 
documentary, the social, historical and cultural realities 
of the various countries on these three continents. 

To do this, the festival utilizes four aspects. There is a 
competition, including entries this year from Algeria, 
Argentina, Bolivia, India, Iran, Nigeria, Senegal, Mali, 
and Morocco; an information section of films; and two 
retrospectives. One retrospective is devoted to the 
Egyptian filmmaker Sala Abou Seif, who was present at 
the festival. The other is a Black American retrospec- 
tive devoted to films made by black filmmakers in this 
country, including the early classics of Oscar 
Micheaux, BODY AND SOUL (1924) and Clarence 
Muse's BROKEN STRINGS (1940), presented by film 
historian Pearl Bowser. 

Others presenting films at Nantes were Melvin Van 
Peebles (who was also on the jury) with his SWEET, 

CHEAP, Warrington Hudlin with STREET CORNER 
STORIES, Jackie Shearer with A MINOR ALTERCA- 
TION, Monica Freeman with LEARNING THROUGH 
THE ARTS, and Valerie Harris representing Third World 
Newsreel with the films VARNETTE'S WORLD by Car- 
by Larry Bullard and Carolyn Johnson, and Udayan 
Gupta who assisted the festival with this retrospective 
selection. Following the festival program, the directors 
presented their films at the Cinematheque Francaise in 

The eighty or more films at Nantes were well received, 
with the Black American retrospective being extremely 
successful with the press and gaining very large au- 
diences. Festival director Philippe Jalladeau wants to 
continue the festival as an annual event, in order to pro- 
mote film as a means of artistic expression and univer- 
sal communication to western Europe, where films 
from Africa, Asia, and Latin America are little known, 
and to develop invaluable contacts and dialogue be- 
tween cinema people from these parts of the world. For 
further information contact: Directeur du Festival des 
Trois Continents, BP 3306, 44033 NANTES Cedex, 


Video documentaries and documentaries made 
especially for television, either tape or film, may be sub- 

For the first time up to $1000 in cash will be awarded. 
The Deadline for submission is March 1, 1980. For fur- 
ther information contact Charles Addotta at Global 
Village, 454 Broome Street, NYC 10013. (212) 966-7526. 

FILM FESTIVAL is now accepting entries for 16mm op- 
tical track films and VHS Vz" and %" video cassettes 
not more than 40 min. in length, released between Jan. 
1978/Jan. 1980. Entry fee — $25 per film; student films, 
$15. If after Jan. 31 — $30 and $20 respectively. For en- 
try forms, fees and films, Feb. 15, 1980. Please mail 
films separate from forms and fees. Contact: Birm- 
ingham International Educational Film Festival, c/o 
Alabama Power Co., Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291. 
(205) 323-5341, ext. 3173. 

tures, 35mm and 16mm filmstrips, 35mm slide pro- 
grams, and % " video cassettes. Entry deadline is 
March 1, 1980. Contact: U.S. Industrial Film Festival, 
841 N. Addison Ave., Elmhurst, IL 60126. (312) 834-7773. 

Film entries are now being accepted for THE FOURTH 
FESTIVAL, to be held May 21-23, 1980 at the Fordham 
University at Lincoln Center in NYC. The competition is 
open to 16mm films and %" videocassettes (NTSC 
only) relating to medical and social aspects of physical 
or mental disability. There is no limit on length or 
release dates. The deadline for entries of films in 
English or English subtitles is March 15, 1980. The 
deadline for films in other languages is February 15, 
1980. Entry fees are on a sliding scale dependent on 
film length. Entry information and entry forms may be 
obtained by writing: Film Festival, Fs, Rehabfilm, 20 
West 40th St., New York, NY 10018. 

EXPLORATION FILMS, "Citta di Tre'nto", will take place 
from the 27th of April to the 3rd of May, 1980. 35 and 
16mm feature or documentary films can be entered. 
(Films produced before 1978 will not be accepted.) All 
films must reach the Festival Director by March 20, 
1980. For details and regulations write: Piero Zanoto, 
Director, Film Festival Montagna-Espbrazione "Citta di 
Trento", 38100 Trento, Italy, Casella postale 563. 


AND VIDEO FESTIVAL will be held April 12-15, and is 
open to works in S8, 16 and 3 A" video cassettes. Entry 
deadline is March 9, 1980. Write: AIFVF, Image Film/ 
Video Center, 972 Peachtree St., Suite 213, Atlanta, GA 

1980 TORONTO SUPER 8 FILM FESTIVAL will be held 
May 16, 17 and 18. Deadline for submission of S8 films 
is May 1st (must be accompanied by entry blank). For 
more information, write Toronto S8 Film Festival, Box 
7109 Postal Station A, Toronto M5W 1X8, Ontario, 

place April 11-13 in Gambier, OH. Entry information due 
by March 25, films by April 1, $5 entry fee. 16 op. or 
silent films only. Contact: Kenyon Film Festival 80, 
Kenyon College, Box 17, Gambier, OH 43022. 

FESTIVAL is open to 16mm films made in the past two 
years. Cash prizes and $1.25/m for every film screened. 
Entry fee $10-20. Deadline for submission is March 15, 
and Festival will take place May 1-14. Contact: Festival, 

Baltimore Film Forum, Room 401, 516 North Charles 
St., Baltimore, MD 21201. 

held April 15-May 4, with a March 31 deadline. Open to 
all 35, 16 and S8 films in the categories of feature, 
short story, animation, experimental and documentary. 
For further information, write: Festival, Box 388, 
Athens, OH 45701. 

sponsored by the Canadian Film Institute, will be held 
in Ottawa, Canada at the National Art Centre from Aug. 
25th to Aug. 30th, 1980. For the first time, electronic 
and computer animation will play a major role in the 
Festival agenda. For more information contact Kelly 
O'Brien or Frederick Manter at: "OTTAWA '80", c/o The 
Canadian Film Institute 1105-75 Albert St., Ottawa, 
Ontario, KIP 5E7 Canada. 

tapes not exceeding 30 min. in length. Selected tapes 
tour museums and media centers around the country; 
one-time $100 rental fee to producers. Deadline for en- 
tries is March 1. Contact: Ithaca Video Projects, 328 
State St., Ithaca, NY 14850. 

TULE, The Cuna Indians 

Of San BlaS by Lillian Jimenez 

I was sitting on a dilapidated ferryboat in the middle of 
the ocean when the motor died. A storm was brewing. 
Waves licked at the sides of the boat, causing it to 
totter ominously. Before long the boat went into a tail- 
spin, creating a whilrpool that began to suck it under. 
My thoughts were racing as fast as my heart: "I can't 
swim that well. . .the waves are high. . .I'll tire before I 
get to the shore. . . I don't speak Kuna (the language of 
95% of the ferry's crew) ... I don't want to die ... " Ethel 
Velez, co-producer of Tule, the video documentary we 
were trying to make on the San Bias Kuna Indians, 
began to get seasick. I was sitting next to the railing, 
holding onto my bench for dear life, when Ethel started 
to sway violently: if she fell over the side, only I could 
grab her. 

"Jesus Christ", I thought, "She's an ex-surfer. I learned 
to swim at Orchard Beach, where the sludge keeps you 
afloat!". I compromised and held onto her and the rail- 
ing at the same time. Edin Velez, co-producer and direc- 
tor of Tule, was on the verge of quiet hysteria. He 
couldn't swim a stroke. As the boat began to really 
lurch, Ethel shrieked, "The equipment!" They both ran 
into the hold, where women and children were crying 
and being very sick. While they were securing the 
equipment, I was developing a full-fledged asthma at- 
tack. I tried to talk myself out of it, knowing that if I let 
go completely, I would lapse into total hysteria. 

Just as we thought the boat was going to capsize, the 
motor kicked over and we chugged toward the closest 
island. Later, en route to Panama City, the pilot in- 
structed us to watch out for incoming planes. There 
had recently been a number of midair collisions and he 
was unable to communicate with incoming flights; his 
sole radio contact was with ground control. We looked 
at each other and realized that we might never see 
home again. 

While working together at Young Filmakers/Video Arts, 
Edin and I had discussed collaboration on his project 
on the Kuna Indians. We originally believed that they 
were matriarchal, and wouldn't it be wonderful to docu- 
ment a society where women play such dominant 
roles? So Edin and Ethel flew down to the island of 
Ustupo and began the work. Because I was unable to 
leave my work at Third World Newsreel for a long period 
of time, I went down for only two weeks. Just before I 
was to leave, Edin called to say that the Ustupo airstrip 
had been completely washed out by the rainy season. I 
would have to take a boat ride from the island of 
Maimitupo to Ustopuo. "Sure, so what's a little boat 

I have always been criticized for overburdening myself 
with clothes and luggage, and this time was no excep- 
tion. Armed with a Beaulieu 2000 to document the pro- 
duction, loads of film, and clothes to dress an army I 



arrived in Panama city. I never made it to Mamitupo the 
first day; the flights were cancelled due to the rain. The 
second day my luggage and I were separated at the air- 
port, where ! had arrived at 4:30 in the morning. After a 
harrowing flight, I was deposited in the middle of a 
clearing. One other passenger disembarked with me, 
but he auickly disappeared into the jungle. 

After a while I was escorted to the dock where my 
transportation to Ustupo was waiting. It was a hugh 
dugout canoe with a small outboard motor attached to 
it. There was this enormous piece of pink plastic in the 
middle of the canoe. I kept asking them what it was for, 
and they kept laughing and telling me I would soon find 
out. As we headed out to open seas, I asked, "Sirs, 
are there any sharks or large fish in these waters?" 
They pealed into laughter and informed me that the 
sharks were not longer than ten feet. Though I consider 
myself an atheist, my Catholic upbringing kept me 
chanting, "Jesus, Mary, Joseph .. .Jesus, Mary, 
Joseph." I had never in my life been out in the open 
seas in a canoe. 

The first night there I slept on a bed infested with bed- 
bugs. There was an earthquake in the middle of the sec- 
ond night, the rest of the trip was spent absorbing the 
tranquility of the Kuna people. We would wake up at 

4:30 a.m. to shoot the early morning scenes. It was 
eerily beautiful to see women rowing in the dawn, the 
huts lit from the breakfast fires and the island slowly 
coming to life. It was a feeling I won't ever forget. With 
our equipment covered with plastic to protect it from 
humidity, we videotaped all over the island and in the 
jungle on the mainland. The night before we left we 
were taken again to the Congress House, and bade an 
emotional farewell; as we left, the men applauded us. 

The Kuna are no longer a matriarchal society, though 
there are definite vestiges. Women play a vital role in 
the economic life; female children are revered more 
than male children; both women and men work very 
hard. Although there are job distinctions based on sex, 
they operate as a collective. In the tape, we did not 
touch on the fact that their self-imposed isolation is 
slowly being eroded by commercial tourism. Panama, 
which has jurisdiction over the islapds, is touting the 
Kuna Indians and Ustupo as a vacation attraction. In 
Panama City we saw Kunas selling their molas (reverse 
applique squares of brilliantly designed cloth) to tourist 
centers for a fraction of the resale price. Tule was 
meant to be representational of the beauty of the peo- 
ple. I hope that when the Kuna see it, they will under- 
stand just how marvelous we think they are. 



FOR SALE: Bolex SBM w/16-100 Vari 
Switar, 1.9 zoom lens, in MINT condition 
w/many extras. Retail cost is over $2100, 
I'm asking $1200. Call Steve at (212) 

FOR SALE: BOLEX RX 3 like new, $400. 
Pan Cinor zoom f2 with reflex finder 
17-85mm, split-field range finder, C or 
RX mount, $300. Write Filmmakers 
Workshop, Box 40, NYC 10038. 

FOR SALE: 1610 Sony Video Camera, 
JVC 3800, Akai cc 150 Color Camera. 
Call (212) 486-9020. 

FOR SALE: Bolex Rex 3, 10mm Switar 
RX lens, 25mm Cine Ektar, 10mm Cine 
Ektar, Quickset Tripod IV, Craig s/8 ed. 
Call: (212) 989-7184. 

FOR SALE: Miller Pro Fluid Head Tri- 
Pod. Standard legs, case, Hi-hat, Ron- 
ford Spreaders. Excellent condition. 
$600. Call Peter at (212) 736-3887. 

FOR SALE: 1 synchronizer (16mm) with 
4 gauge, footage and frame counters 
and 1 soundhead, ($200). Also 1 
director's viewfinder, burns and sawyer 
($140). Call: Sebastian at (212) 749-3610. 
Weekdays after 7pm. 

WANTED: Lighting equipment of any 
kind. Call: Josh Karan (212) 642-1112. 

FOR RENT: 40x50' studio space, 
suitable for filmmaking. Includes office 
space, separate general purpose rooms. 
Very low cost, negotiable. Call (516) 

FOR SALE: Playback deck, Sony SLO 
320 1 /2 " Betamax record playback, color, 
industrial model. Only 3 months old. 
Asking $800. Can use for rough cuts in 
3 A" editing. Contact: Tom Bowes, The 
Kitchen, (212) 925-3615. 

will initiate a PORTABLE VIDEO LOAN 
PROGRAM, starting Feb. 1980. 
Resources include color camera, %" 
deck and accessories, and a profes- 
sional technician. For details contact 
YF/VA, 4 Rivington St., NYC 10002, (212) 

FOR SALE: NEW, never used, Ediquip 
REWINDS with shafts for 4 reels. $50 or 
Best Offer. Also, entire published 
volume of Filmmakers Newsletter 
(1967-79) and several yrs. worth of other 
film periodicals, all available at 
negotiable prices. CONTACT: Julian 
Rubenstein, 590 West End Ave., NY, NY 
10024. Tel. # (212) 799-7265. 


HELP WANTED: Sound person to col- 
laborate on an article about low-budget 
sound, as guest-columnist. Write: Sol 
Rubin, Box 40, NYC 10038. 

HELP WANTED: Cable technician (CMX 
Editor) at Synapse Video Center, 
Syracuse Univ. Full university benefits; 
salary negotiable: minimum $4.00/hr. 
Contact: Henry Baker at Synapse Video 
Center, 103 College PL, Syracuse, NY 
13210; or call (315) 423-3100. 

HELP WANTED: Audio-Visual Equip- 
ment Manager at Rutgers Univ. position 
available. Must have Bachelor's degree 
plus experience in servicing and use of 
16, S8, 1 /2 " and %" video equipment. 
Salary $11,582. Write: Rutgers, Division 
of Personnel, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. 

WANTED: Partner to collaborate on 
comedic screenplays with. A knowledge 
of screenwriting technique preferred. 
Please call (212) 877-4262 before 11pm. 

responsible for repair and maintenance 
of Sony helical-scan videotape equip- 
ment. Send resume to NYU, Graduate In- 
stitute of Film and TV, attn: Vito Brunet- 
ti, 40 East 7th St., NYC, 10003. 

WORK WANTED: Gaffer with lights and 
cables will negotiate rate according to 
budget. Contact: Josh Karan at (212) 

WORK WANTED: Soundperson with 
Nagra 4.2L available for work. Call: (212) 

WORK WANTED: Actor available for 
work. Call (212) 478-7504, before 11am or 
after 6pm for resume and picture. 

WORK WANTED: as P.A. in film/video. 
Presently working on feature film, also 
experience as intern at Manhattan 
Cable. Contact: Robert Sharpe, 342 
West 71st St., NYC 10023, or call (212) 
TR 3-5999. 

WORK WANTED: Editing or assistant 
editing work on documentaries or 
educational films. Proficient in all 
aspects of post-production. Contact: 
David Dresher, 50 MacDougal #9, NYC 
10012 or call (212) 228-9128. 

Quick, clean cut, low prices. B/W, color, 
or negative reversal. Call Pola Rapaport: 
(212) 431-3773. 

WORK WANTED: Michael Angelo, Jr. 
seeks PA job or any type of production 
work leading to production manager 
position for completion of his degree. 
Write: Box 25, Andrews Memorial Drive, 
Rochester, NY 14623. (715) 475-4391. 

tion company seeks multi-talented ex- 
perienced crew preferably with own 
equipment for grant-funded 16mm 
documentary series to begin production 
fall 1980. Positions: Cameraman, Assis- 
tant Cameraman, Sound, Production 
Manager, Editor, Assistant Editor. Send 
resumes to: Low Sulphur Productions, 
355 West 85th St., NYC 10024. 

cian-Repair. Temple Univ. is seeking 
qualified maintenance repair person for 
the Film Program. Responsibilities in- 
clude routine maintenance and repair on 
16mm cameras, film sound, editing, aux- 
iliary equipment and overseeing repairs 
by outside vendors. Candidates should 
have good organizational and technical 
skills. Salary, benefits excellent, in- 
cluding tuition remission. Send resume 
and salary history in confidence to: 
Ellen Scheitrum, Temple Univ., Room 
203 University Services Building, 1601 
N. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19122, 
(215) 787-7175. 

Responsible for operation of a com- 
munity resource center; production and 
editing; conducting training sessions in 
video production skills, exper. in com- 
munity group process; programming 
film, photography, video; writing and im- 
plementing grant proposals. Send letter 
and resume to: Lillian R. Katz, Media 
Port Services, Pt. Washington Public 
Library, 245 Main St., Pt. Washington, 
NY 11050. 


able from Synapse to independents who 
want to edit work for broadcast. Pro- 
posals should be sent to: Synapse, 
Syracuse Univ., 103 College PL, 
Syracuse, NY 13210. 

editing and post-production facilities 
available. Fully equipped rooms, 24-hour 
access in security building. 6-plate 
Steenbeck, 6-plate Moviola flatbed, 



sound transfers from 1 A " to 16mm mag, 
narration recording, sound effects 
library, interlock screening room avail- 
able. Contact: Cinetudes Film Produc- 
tions, 377 Broadway, NYC 10013. (212) 

Works, Inc. will locate stock footage for 
your next production. Access to exten- 
sive stock footage by government agen- 
cies, associations, etc. Complete ser- 
vices — research, previewing, reproduc- 
tion, and delivery. Tell us your needs — 
we'll find the footage. Media Works, Inc. 
Box 57269, Wash. D.C. 20037. 


terested in updating files on filmmakers, 
and would like to receive information 
from filmmakers about themselves and 
their work and if work is available to 
preview. Send info to: New Community 
Cinema, Box 498, Huntington, NY 11743. 
Attention, Steven Davidson. 

CRM/MCGRAW-HILL is seeking com- 
pleted 16mm films to distribute on a 
royalty basis to the non-theatric, educa- 
tional and/or business markets. Films 
can be on any subject for any age if they 
are of value in the classroom or 
business training situations. Write to: 
Ms. S. Rose, Acquiring Editor, CRM/ 
McGraw-Hill, 110 15th St., Del Mar, CA 

TAPES to present in monthly series 
starting Feb. 1980. All works will be con- 
sidered for broadcast at local television 
stations. BF/VF is presently negotiating 
with several of these stations for broad- 
cast in the Spring. Contact: Irwin Friman 
at (617) 254-1616. 

KDBI-TV, a public station in Boulder, CO 
is organizing a cooperative to distribute 
independent work to public television. 
The Independent Film and Video Distri- 
bution Center will acquire works by in- 
dependent producers, create broadcast 
length packages of works of similar sub- 
ject or genre, and market the packages 
to the PBS stations. The amount of in- 
come from a package will depend on the 
number of stations that buy it, and the 
producers' share will be 75% of gross 
revenue, minus the cost of satellite time 
to feed programs to the stations. 
Descriptions of work and inquiries on 
the IFVDC are welcome at Front Range 
Educational Media Corp., Box 4262, 
Boulder, CO 80306. 

films and tapes for intermission spots 
on WGBH. Rates for local broadcast are 
on a sliding scale from $100 to $85 per 
minute. Works selected for this initial 
group will be offered to national and 

regional PBS systems shortly, with addi- 
tional rates paid. Local broadcast will 
begin in early 1980. To submit work, 
please send films or videotapes to: 
"Brief Encounters" project. CENTER 
SCREEN Inc., 18 Vassar St., 20B-126, 
Cambridge, MA 02139. Works will be 
sent back within 10 days. Deadline is 
Jan 31, 1980. Any questions, contact 
CENTER SCREEN Director Barry Levine, 
(617) 494-0201. 

FRENCH FILM COMPANY: interested in 
acquiring independent films: features, 
animation, documentary, and children's 
films. Company owns theatres in Paris. 
Contact: Eva Mekler, 28 East 10th St., 
New York, NY 10003, (212) 777-3055 or 
(212) 724-7400. 

FILMS WANTED BY CINE: a non-profit 
organization that selects independent 
films for international festivals, attempt- 
ing to match films with festivals. Selec- 
tion is done by regional juries. Contact 
CINE, 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20036, (202) 785-1136. 

WNET-TV: is presently seeking films for 
acquisition that highlight events of the 
1960's or rites of passage from adoles- 
cence to adulthood. Contact: Liz Oliver, 
Program Acquisitions, WNET, 356 W. 
58th St., NYC, 10019. 

is in the process of establishing a net- 
work to exhibit Black TV programming 
that it acquires to cable TV subscribers 
across the country. BET is interested in 
licensing Black programming (tape/film) 
for exhibition on an advertiser-sup- 
ported basis, particularly entertainment- 
type programming, including "docu- 
drama", rather than educational or 
politically oriented programs. For info, 
contact: Bob Johnson, Pres., BET, 3544 
Brandywine St., NW, Washington, DC 
20008, (202) 457-6776. 

CENSORSHIP? We need short (5-30 min) 
films and tapes ( 3 A") which deal with 
censorship or freedom and restraint in 
American Society. Also, we need short 
films/tapes dealing with industrial 
waste/work/quality of life. The material 
we seek will be used in an interactive 
cable experiment in Pennsylvania. If you 
have pertinent tape or film, please send 
description/costs/rights information to: 
E. F. Churchill, Pennsylvania State Univ., 
Capitol Campus, Middletown, PA 17057 
or call (717) 783-6197. 

ing proposals for a series of specials on 
themes pertinent to the communities 
served by their 7 stations: WNEW New 
York, KTTV Los Angeles, WXIX Cincin- 
nati, and KMBC Kansas City. Producers 
are invited to contact the program direc- 
tor of the Metromedia affiliate in their 

area, or write: Richard Ballinger, Direc- 
tor of Programming, Metromedia TV 
Inc., 485 Lexington Avenue, NY NY 
10017; (212) 682-9100. 


held March 7-9 in Omaha. Dedicated to 
previewing the short film to a 
Midwestern audience. Special guests. 
To register, write: RCFC, Box 14232, 
Omaha, NE 68124. 

filmmakers and film scholars. One 
semester term of teaching, seminars 
and workshops, heavily instructional. 
For more information write: R. J. Lewis, 
Chairman, Film Dept., San Francisco 
State Univ., 1600 Holloway Ave., S.F., CA 

OPEN CHANNELS is a three-year NEH 
Learning Museum Program presented 
by The Museum of Broadcasting. Seven 
evening lecture courses of six classes 
each, on aspects of broadcasting, 
designed for the general public as well 
as experts. Course subjects include "TV 
as a Visual Art", "Broadcasting's Fight 
for Freedom", "Fact, Fiction and 
Documentation." OPEN CHANNELS 
courses are open to all by advance mail 
registration. Students can arrange 
academic credit. Single admissions ($5) 
may be purchased at the door. For more 
information call 752-4682. 

ten-week intensive workshop for anyone 
who has anything to publicize, advertise 
or dramatize on a tight budget. Con- 
ducted by Victoria Lucas and Helen 
Kruger. For more information call (212) 
489-8008 or 243-1661. 

course to be offered at YF/VA: geared 
toward broadcast-quality color produc- 
tion. YF/VA video course or comparable 
training required; also resume, work 
sample and interview. 12 sessions, Thur. 
6-10pm, 2/28 through 5/15. $100. Class 
limited to 15 students. 

course also at YF/VA. Comprehensive 
hands-on introduction to all phases of 
Vz" b/w video. All equipment provided; 
scholarship aid availble. Application, in- 
terview required. 12 sessions, Mon. 
6-10pm, 3/10 through 5/27. $300. Limited 
to 15 students. 

course also at YF/VA. To upgrade sound 
recording skills of f/v professionals. 2 
sessions, Sat. 3/22 and Sun. 3/23, 1-6pm. 
$100 if paid in full before 3/7; $115 there- 
after. Limited to 12 students. For more 


information on these 3 courses, contact 
Young Filmmakers/Video Arts, 4 Riving- 
ton St., NYC 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

presented by YF/VA in March, will be a 
series of discussions about producing 
for film and television. Guests will in- 
clude Frederick Wiseman, on "Produc- 
ing the Independent Documentary", and 
Michael Hausman, on "Producing the In- 
dependent Narrative". Other topics will 
include "The Independent Producer and 
Commercial Television" and "The In- 
dependent Producer and Cable TV". For 
more information contact YF/VA, 4 Riv- 
ington St., NYC 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

given on new 340X Expanded Keyboard. 
Learn the basics of operating the CMX 
system through intensive, hands-on in- 
struction. Previous %" video editing ex- 
perience required. For more information 
Call: (212) 966-4510, Downtown Com- 
munity Television Center. 

WOMEN MAKE MOVIES will offer five 
workshops starting the first week in 
March: Basic 16mm filmmaking, Basic 
1 /2 " video production, Basic Animation, 
a workshop on Feminist Aesthetics, and 
a film/discussion series on the history 
of social documentary film. For further 
information call Women make Movies at 


NEGATIVE MATCHING: A quick, clean 
cut at low prices. All 16mm and 35mm 
stocks. (References available). Call: (212) 

MEDIA BUS INC: video editing facilities 
for artists and producers (Non-com- 
mercial). Beta, 1 /2 " and % " to Sony 2860. 
Dubbing, titling, proc amp, RM 430, 
audio mixing. $15/hr with engineer. Call: 
(914) 679-7739, Woodstock, NY. 

able (including a 6-plate Steenbeck). 
Also complete sound transfer equip- 
ment. Call: (212) 486-9020. 

MAT: now available to educational and 
cultural institutions. Also available is 
the new print catalogue, which contains 
descriptions of sixty-nine programs 
made by Indie video artist-producers. In- 
cluded is a listing of all 160 programs 
distributed by EAI. Print catalogue is 
available without charge to educational 
and cultural institutions on request. 
LETTERHEAD, TO: 84 Fifth Ave., NYC 

RED CURTAIN: a 26-week series, pre- 
sents videotape and film works by 
artists. Most of the tapes and films (nar- 

rative, docu-collage, drama, perfor- 
mance and experimental) have been 
screened at clubs and showcases in 
New York and abroad. The video/film 
works are available individually or as a 
series for rent or sale to museums, 
tv/cable stations and individuals (%" 
color videotapes). Contact: Matthew 
Geller, 4 White St., NYC 10013. 


DIRECTORY, Second Edition: available 
for $5/copy. This expanded, updated 
DIRECTORY includes a complete index 
to thousands of film and video makers, 
as well as institutions, organizations, 
museums, universities, media centers 
and distributors involved with indepen- 
dent film and video in the U.S. and 
abroad. An organization profile (equip- 
ment facilities and policies) is provided 
for many institutions. Please include 
check (payable to "Carnegie Institute") 
with your order. Special rates that in- 
clude both a copy of the DIRECTORY 
and a subscription to the TRAVEL 
SHEET are $6/yearly in the U.S., and $12/ 
yearly airmail abroad. Contact: Carnegie 
Institute — Film Section, Museum of 
Art, 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 

TELEVISION: researched pieces, 
together with news columns and items 
on everything from distribution to 
prompting devices and cheap ways to 
jazz up titles, may make the annual $15 
(12 issues) worthwhile for independents. 
Write for "E and I TV" at C.S. Tepfer 
Publishing Co., Inc., 51 Sugar Hollow 
Rd., Danbury, CT 06810. 

GUIDE: a new quarterly to aid librarians, 
educators, A/V departments and others 
order independently produced pro- 
grams. Issues will list about 250 titles, 
and cost $10 per year. Contact: Educa- 
tional Film Library Assn., 43 West 61st 
St., NYC 10023. 

DIRECTORY, Second Edition: available 
for $5/copy. This expanded, updated 
DIRECTORY includes a complete index 
to thousands of film and video makers, 
as well as institutions, organizations, 
museums, universities, media centers 
and distributors involved with indepen- 
dent film and video in the U.S. and 
abroad. An organization profile (equip- 
ment facilities and policies) is provided 
for many institutions. Please include 
check (payable to "Carnegie Institute") 
with your order. Special rates that in- 
clude both a copy of the DIRECTORY 
and a subscription to the TRAVEL 
SHEET are $6/yearly in the U.S., and 

$12/yearly airmail abroad. Contact: 
Carnegie Institute — Film Section, 
Museum of Art, 4400 Forbes Ave., Pitts- 
burgh, PA 15213. 

TELEVISION: researched pieces, 
toegher with news columns and items 
on everything from distribution to 
prompting devices and cheap ways to 
jazz up titles, may make the annual $15 
(12 issues) worthwhile for independents. 
Write for "E and I TV" at C.S. Tepfer 
Publishing Co., Inc., 51 Sugar Hollow 
Rd., Danbury, CT 06810. 

GUIDE: a new quarterly to aid librarians, 
educators, A/V departments and others 
order independently produced pro- 
grams. Issues will list about 250 titles, 
and cost $10 per year. Contact: Educa- 
tional Film Library Assn., 43 West 61st 
St., NYC 10023. 


99 Prince Street 
New York, N.Y. 10012 


New York, N.Y. 
Permit No. 7089 


We're Moving 

March 1 


By George Griffen 





BB»9» *j»Va?*/5 




■■ .\, 



v .'. 








vol.3 no. 2 

the I Independent 


THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, 
articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence 
we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material to 
THE INDEPENDENT, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, NY, NY 10012. 
If you'd like your material returned to you please enclose a 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 

NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of month 
preceding publication, preferrably earlier. 








D AIVF STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tbnkonow, Assistant Director; Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director; Media Works: Lillian Jimenez, 
Project Director; Bob Wiegand, Executive Producer; Karen Brinkman, 
Project Coordinator; Frances Piatt, Project Coordinator. 

Tom Johnson 

The Feb. 5th AIVF/FIVF Board meeting evaluated two 
health plans for the membership and reviewed the pro- 
cedures for Short Film Showcase, resolving that past 
and future SFS winners be allowed to participate equally 
in all SFS competitions, that special solicitation be ex- 
tended to minority producers, and that solicitation be as 
broad as possible. Nominating procedures were de- 
signed and recommended for upcoming Board elections. 

On February 9th, a few days after its regular monthly 
meeting, the FIVF Board met for a full day to review its 
national structure. The Board was responding to an in- 
creasing national membership, governed by a Board 
whose directors are based in New York City. Presenta- 
tions identifying the needs and concerns of regional 
film and video makers were heard from Glenn Silber, 
Madison, Wisconsin, and Barbara Zheutlin, Los 
Angeles, California. 

The FIVF Board resolved to create, on a preliminary 
basis, regional representatives who will facilitate 
development of FIVF membership in their region and 
provide a live, two-way channel between that member- 
ship and the FIVF Board. 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Matthew 
Clarke, Treasurer; Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex 
Officio. Stew Bird; Jeff Byrd (AIVF only); Maxi Cohen; Monica Freeman, 
Vice-President; Manny Kirchheimer; Kathy Kline, Chairperson; Kitty 
Morgan; Jane Morrison, President; Elliot Noyes, Secretary; Ted 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, and are open to the public. The next two meetings 
are scheduled for Tuesday, April 1st and Tuesday, May 6th. 
Both will start promptly at 8:00 pm. Dates and times are sub- 
ject to last minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to 


Your membership in AIVF has expired, and this 
issue of THE INDEPENDENT will be your last un- 
less you renew immediately. Board elections are 
coming up in April and your votes won't count un- 
less your memberships are current. Your member- 
ship in AIVF means a show of support for a 
healthy Independent community. So don't let your 
membership lapse — we need each other! To join 
or renew, send your check for $20.00 (New York 
City residents). $15.00 (individuals outside NYC) 
or $40.00 (institutions) to our new address at: 


625 Broadway, 9th Floor 

New York, NY 10012 

or call our new telephone number: (212) 473-3400 
for additional information. 


It seems every few months or so I somehow "lose" 
another film in the pages of "The Independent". I am 
referring to p. 18 of the December/January issue and 
the attribution of "Finally Got the News" to Stew Bird. 
The credits of course read alphabetically, Stew Bird, 
Peter Gessner, and Rene Lichtman. 

In the cuthroat world of indie production, this is bad 
form, and unfair to Rene who works in a paint factory in 
Detroit, and to me, living out here three thousand miles 
from the world of grants, PBS, WNET etc. Sorry if I 
sound pissed, but I am. 

I was unaware that FGTN was submitted to Indepen- 
dent Focus, but as to their contention that it is "dated" 
I suppose one could argue that they themselves are 
sponsoring an update with "Rising Up in Motor City". 
But I'd rather not make that point, because that's to 
play their balanced journalistic game. Obviously, their 
stance is ultimately a political one, and that's where 
they should be taken on. 

Yours for truth in cinema, 
Peter Gessner 


To the Editor: 

Richard Berkowitz's editorial concerning 
INDEPENDENT FOCUS, which appeared in the 
December/ January issue of The Independent, 
ignored significant and noteworthy facts. 

Within just three seasons, INDEPENDENT FOCUS 
has aired more than seventy (70) independent films 
and tapes, all television premiers of works not 
originally produced for television. In this series 
Thirteen has broadcast both works by veteran 
independent producers, and first films by relative 
unknowns. Documentaries have covered a broad 
spectrum of subjects including the Japanese- 
American experience during WWII ("Uprooted!" by 
Donald and Susan Rundstrom); the effects of Agent 
Orange on Vietnam Veterans (Jody Eisemann's "War 
Shadows"), growing old in America (Cinda 
Firestone's "Retirement" and "South Beach"), 
portraits of spirited and talented individuals (Susan 
Wengraf's "Love It Like A Fool"), family profiles 
(Alfred Guzzetti's "Family Portrait Sittings"), small- 
time boxers, (Augie Cinquegrana's "Goodnight Miss 
Ann"). INDEPENDENT FOCUS has presented such 
varied dramatic works as Karen Arthur's "Legacy," 
Jan Egleson's "Billy In the Lowlands," "Loose 
Ends" by David Morris and Victoria Wozniak, and 
Mark Rappaport's "Scenic Route." We will have also 
aired such humorous works as Stan Woodward's 
"It's Grits," Michael Wiese's "Hardware Wars," and 
Michael O'Connell's "Model Railroading Unlimited." 

Nor is INDEPENDENT FOCUS by any means the only 
avenue at WNET for presenting independent work 
locally on Thirteen. In addition there is the TV Lab's 
unique series VIDEO AND FILM REVIEW, which is 
coming upon its seventh season; the Lab's Artists-in- 
Residence program, as well as the many projects for 
which Thirteen' s Lab has provided production 

WNET also has developed thematic series which 
provide a means of further utilizing independent 
work. THE SIXTIES LEGACY, which aired this past 
summer, included many independent works such as 
Emil de Antonio's "Underground" (interviews with 
the Weather Underground), Peter Rosen's "Bright 
College Years" (student activism), "The Season's 
Change" (documenting the demonstrations at the 
1968 Chicago Democratic Convention). We have just 
finished airing a series of prime time specials 
relating to New York City neighborhoods, including 
Third World Newsreel's "The People's Firehouse #1," 
about a Brooklyn community's fight to keep their 
firehouse; Donald Schwartz's "Louie," the story of 
an elderly shopkeeper in Greenwich Village who 
helps young boys in trouble; Bob Machover's 
"Collection and Disposal," about garbage collection 
and dumping in Staten Island. All these are in 
addition to the WNET TV Lab's work nationally with 
the Independent Documentary Fund, the numerous 
local special presentations and the many films WNET 
has supported for national presentation on PBS. 
Regarding the latter, WNET has consistently 
supported efforts to convince CPB to fund the 
acquisitions at higher rates to the producers. 

What is obvious from this partial list is there is the 
range of subjects, means of access, and numbers of 
filmmakes who have worked with or whose works 
have been seen on the station, and that these works 
are designed to appeal to diverse audiences. In his 
editorial, Mr. Berkowitz noted that the latter point 
was a special challenge to this year's^ advisory panel 
for INDEPENDENT FOCUS. And, it was a chaUenge 
well met. A look at the films included in this series 
shows significant representation of films for and by 
the constituencies Mr. Berkowitz himself singled out, 
such as "Loisaida" by Beni Matias and Marci 
Reaven, "Tule" by Edin Velez, "With Babies and 
Banners" by Lorraine Gray, "Varnette's World" by 
Carroll Partott Blue, "Killer of Sheep" by Charles 
Burnett, "The Flashettes" by Bonnie Friedman, 
"Jenny" by Virginia Hashii, "Simplemente Jenny" 
by Helen Solberg-Ladd, "Trnasmagnifican 
Dambamuality" by Ronald Gray, "Passing Through" 
by Larry Clark, among others. 

In addition, to insure that various communities were 
aware of the WNET broadcasts which might be of 
special interest to them, Thirteen's Community and 
Government Affairs Department mailed community 
alert bulletins to neighborhood and professional 


newsletters, community organizations and leaders. 
In collaboration with the producers, we have been 
planning special screenings for relevant community 
organizations. We have also assisted filmmakers with 
mailings of their own. This effort complements our 
Public Information Department's press kit which 
included detailed program notes (available to 
viewers); press previews and follow-up calls to the 
press; highlights in WNET's regular calendar ads; a 
special article in Thirteen 's February membership 
magazine; plus on-air promos aimed at the general 
viewing audience. 

INDEPENDENT FOCUS has not shied away from 
films which take a strong or controversial position 
on a particular subject. Two such films included this 
season are "Controlling Interest" and "Salt of the 
Earth." Several other films in this season's 
INDEPENDENT FOCUS also deal with socio-political 
themes and express' strong points of view. 

Mr. Berkowitz refers to a 'history' of censoring gay 
programs at WNET. There is no such history. Not 
only did WNET contribute completion funding to 
"Word is Out" and support its national presentation, 
but that program has been repeated in prime time. 
Following "Word is Out" WNET had also produced 
an hour-long special program, "Gays at Work," 
which examined the recurring problems encountered 
by gays in the metropolitan area work force, and 
included viewer call-ins to the studio. We have aired 
and plan to repeat VISIONS' "War Widows," and will 
soon be airing Richard Benner's "Outrageous." Mr. 
Berkowitz also mentioned our editing 'gay moments 
in non-gay programs,' and then referred to Frank 
Vitale's "Montreal Main." A part of the scene in 
question was edited — on the advice of WNET'S legal 
counsel. Before anything was edited, however, Terry 
Kemper, last season's Coordinating Producer of 
INDEPENDENT FOCUS, contacted Mr. Vitale directly. 
There were no 'subtle' pressures brought to bear, as 
Mr. Berkowitz alleged. Rather, the concerns were 
explained to the filmmaker, who was asked directly 
about the edit, and to which he agreed. Finally, for 
the record, in this season's series, Wendy Clarke's 
"Love Tapes," a compilation of short monologues on 
love, includes what Mr. Berkowitz would probably 
refer to as a 'gay moment.' 

Regarding the selection process for INDEPENDENT 
FOCUS, a few facts: 

When Marc Weiss was hired as the Coordinating 
Producer this season, it was with the understanding 
that he would be working with an advisory group 
which would assist him in making recommendations 
to WNET for the series. It was stated from the outset 

1. the panel's role was advisory 

2. that while no film or tape to which any panel 
member objected would be included . . . 

3. ... final responsibility for the selections 
remained with the station — a legal 

It was the Coordinating Producer's role to work with 
the advisory group, organizing screenings and review 
sessions. (Incidentally, two of the panelists never 
showed up for any screenings or meetings, and one 
panelist appeared only at the opening and closing 

The process was not designed to position Marc as a 
'go-between' or 'buffer' as Mr. Berkowitz charged. 
That belittles the importance of Marc's role. Rather, 
it was a division of responsibilities which Marc 
endorsed at that time. 

Throughout the screening period Marc and I 
discussed the films under review. The panel rejected 
several which I had recommended for inclusion. Mr. 
Berkowitz' s remark that films were 'axed without 
comment' is a misrepresentation of the facts. 
Further, films rejected for INDEPENDENT FOCUS do 
not represent the 'last chance' for broadcast. As I 
have explained, there are many points of access at 
the station, and the four films in dispute, "Finally 
Got the News," "0 Povo Organizado," "A Comedy in 
Six Unnatural Acts," and "The Chicago Maternity 
Center Story," are currently being reviewed by the 
program department for possible broadcast use. 

It is important to keep in mind that WNET accepted 
24 of 28 recommendations by the advisory panel and 
did not include any works in INDEPENDENT FOCUS 
which were not recommended through that process. 

There is no denying that the process was not perfect 
— from either the station's or the panel's 
perspective. But there is also no denying that it was 
a major step which resulted in a high degree of 

If INDEPENDENT FOCUS is as important as we 
believe, then resolution of issues, constructive 
forward movement and a long life should be the goal. 
Now is the time for a substantive exchange of ideas, 
for learning from one another. It is time to recognize 
that good faith efforts have been made, and build 
upon those efforts and alliances. 

As we evaluate this past season and begin plans for 
next season, I hope and expect tht the independent 
community will work with us to forward our mutual 

Liz Oliver 

Manager, Independent Acquisitions 

WNET /Thirteen 

Congress of tfje Winitth States 

Jlouge of 3t\epresentattbeg 

fflaffyin&tim, 53.C. 20515 

24th District, California 

December 13, 1979 

Dr. Robben W. Fleming 

President, Corporation for Public 


1111 16th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

See "minimum legal response" published in the 
Dec/Jan. Independent (Vol, 2/no. 10). 

Dear Dr. Fleming: 

I have received a copy of the legal memorandum prepared by 
Theodore D. Frank, dated September 18, 1979, regarding CPB fund- 
ing of independent television productions. It discusses at length 
congressional intent regarding CPB's obligations to allocate funds 
to independent producers. 

I merely wish to comment on the memorandum's reference to my 
colloquy with Chairman Van Deerlin on the House Floor on July 10, 
1978. The purpose of my discussion with the Chairman was to leave 
no doubt that it was our intent and full expectation that CPB would 
set aside 50% of its programming funds for products developed by 
independent producers. Although CPB certainly has statutory dis- 
cretion in determining the level of funding for independents, it 
would not be correct to conclude that any lesser figure would be 
consistent with the legislative history of Section 396 (K). I en- 
gaged in my colloquy with the Chairman precisely to make the re- 
cord clear on this point. 

Please accept my thanks for this opportunity to share my views 
on this section of Mr. Frank's memorandum. 

With kind regards, I am, 


Member of Congress 


And Now q Word From 
Lewis Freedman... 


(This is the first paper from Lewis Freedman, director of 
the CPB Program Fund, submitted to the CPB long 
range planning committee at their Feb. 6th meeting. It 
is an overview of his general programming projections 
for the coming years. His affirmative commitment 
[below] to independent producers is intended specif- 
ically for F/Y 81.) 

"N.B. Since a substantial amount of money must 
go directly to independent producers and since a 
large share of the ongoing programs are station 
produced, the Program Fund will have to channel 
almost all of its new funding directly to the in- 

The Program Fund of CPB was created in response to 
the CPB Board's conclusion that individual program 
decisions were better made by a Program Director than 
by the Board. Therefore, they would henceforth provide 
overall guidelines within which the Director would 
make decisions. The special province of the Program 
Fund is the creation of innovative and exciting pro- 
grams, particularly in those areas where the conven- 
tional system of program selection falls short. 

There are two or three areas of possible programming 
glaringly absent from the current schedule: American 
Drama, American History, American Government, 
American Art, and American Health. They are absent 
both on the adult and on the children's level. Before ex- 
amining the possible steps forward that must be taken 
in the next two or three years, it would be useful to look 
toward more distant goals both ideally and realistically. 

Our target for American Drama should be a yearly 
series of plays stretching across 39 weeks and in- 
cluding originals and American classics. This National 
Television Theater would represent the best talent in 
Los Angeles and in New York as well as in the regional 
centers. It would include world drama interpreted by 
American actors and American directors. Ideally, it 
would include one full-length play each month with 
shorter plays the remaining weeks. This National 
Television Theater would require one year of planning 
and pre-production at the cost of $300,000 and one year 
of production before it reaches the air. The final cost 
would be 24 million dollars. 

A second target will be the dramatization of American 
History. Using actual events as well as literature, the 
lives of great American men and women and perhaps 
the entire Saga of America could be told. Ideally, in five 
years time, the programming schedule for public broad- 
casting would consist of 7 five-part dramatizations of 

such material as The Life of George Washington Carver 
or Will Cather's "O Pioneers". The total cost of such a 
season realistically will be 15 million dollars. 

American Government on the national, state, and local 
levels has been noticeably absent except through the 
occasional special. In five years time, it should be 
possible to program on a regular basis a number of 
series that would explain to the citizen in an entertain- 
ing way how the government works. For example, a 
series of 13 programs on how to be President of the 
United States, or how to be a Congressman, or how to 
be Secretary of State, should be created that would 
combine general problems with the human interest of 
particular men and women who have filled those roles. 
The cost of a series of 30 minute programs for 13 weeks 
would be 3 million dollars, or 9 million dollars for a 
season of 39 weeks. 

Another approach to American Government is through 
its processes. For example, in any given year there is a 
wide variety of decision making, often controversial, 
which the average citizen rarely understands. A series 
of programs analyzing the process by which a decision 
is made in the government, and including the often 
heated adversary positions, could be presented on a 
weekly basis. Including an occasional live "Town 
Meeting of the Air" originating in whatever part of the 
country most concerned, bringing back to public broad- 
casting and to its viewers a sense of participation in 
the national action. The cost would be 3.5 million 
dollars for 13 weeks. 

The current United States commitment to overseas 
engagements is not fully exploited by public broadcast 
programming. There are at least two approaches that 
might be valuable. On the one hand, a series of broad- 
casts that examined in detail our activity abroad: 
diplomatic, economic, educational, and military, sug- 
gests a series that might be called "Stranger in a 
Strange Land" and would examine on a weekly basis 
the various Americans living and working abroad — the 
diplomat, the engineer, and the military advisor. This 
series over a period of 13 weeks would cost 3.3 million 

On the other hand, our commitment to defending our in- 
ternational interests, since it has become an urgent 
problem, suggests a series of programs that explains 
both political and military realities, ranging from an ex- 
amination of foreign policy to an analysis of a particular 
weapons system. This kind of series would enable the 
viewer to understand the headlines that he sees in the 
newspapers as well as the policies that are determined 
by the President and Congress, focusing each week on 
some particular place in the world where American 


stakes are high. This would cost 3.3 million dollars for a 
13 part series of one hour's length. 

Not last and certainly not least is the opportunity that 
public broadcasting has to make the government visi- 
ble: that is to say, to broadcast on a nightly basis the 
debates and decision making of the Congress of the 
United States. Although steps have been taken to make 
available the daily sessions of the House, it is still not 
yet available to every public broadcasting station on a 
regular basis. In five years, it could be possible to see 
and hear regularly both the House and the Senate as 
well as to have available, for each local station, the par- 
ticular activity of its own Congressman both on the 
floor or interviewed in a studio about a particular issue. 
The cost of this service would be 5 million dollars 

Concerning American Art, there is currently fairly good 
coverage of the major performance events in New York 
and occasionally in Los Angeles. What is obviously 
missing is a chance for the audience to see perfor- 
mances taking place across the country. In the past 
decades, through the encouragement and assistance of 
federal and state art councils, there has come into ex- 
istence a rich variety of artistic adventures which have 
not yet become visible beyond their local neighbor- 
hoods. It is certainly within the mandate of the Program 
Fund to develop that visibility so that the entire 
citizenry can share the experiences that range from the 
Kennedy Center in Washington DC to the Jackson 
Mississippi Opera Company. This series of specials, 
however, could be far beyond the formally organized 
arts and might include various regional events which 
regularly take place and which range from the Congress 
of Native Americans in the Southwest to the Autumn 
Fairs in New England. A series of weekly specials, 
sometimes broadcast live, would cost 12 million dollars 

The non-performing arts are rarely programmed but 
offer a rich part of the American experience that could 
serve both to broaden the understanding of the spec- 
tator while encouraging the artists themselves. Al- 
though there have been sporadic specials and occa- 
sional low-key series dealing with a particular museum 
or a certain artist, there has never been a fully endowed 
and fully thought through organization of this material. 
It is possible in five years, then, to imagine a weekly 
series of programs in a museum without walls, that 
could make the artistic life of America a part of the con- 
sciousness of all citizens. This national museum would 
take advantage of, as well as publicize, events like the 
National Sculpture Show in Washington DC and as lit- 
tle known as the Arts and Crafts Fair of a Mexican- 
American Barrio or a Shaker community. It would range 
from the highest art in the National Gallery to the 
popular folk art in which this country is so rich. A series 
of 39 one hour programs would cost 9 million dollars. 

The sciences are rather well served at present. Various 
funding has made available the NATIONAL GEO- 
and soon ODYSSEY. What seems to be lacking, 
however, is both the exploration of the purer scientific 

researches that take place each year having continuing 
impact on our lives and also the simple explorations of 
the electronic and mechanical world we live in. At least 
two series are possible: "EXPERIMENT" — which 
follows a particular scientist and his team from the in- 
ception to the completion of whatever experiment he 
has decided to work on, and "EUREKA" — a series of 
programs that explains everything from the zipper to 
the picture that comes back to us from Mars. A consis- 
tent programming effort on these two levels providing a 
weekly 30 minute program over the course of one year 
would cost 6 million dollars. 

There is an area of programming that is hard to place 
within the traditional subdivision. It concerns the in- 
dividual and his daily problems: how to get a job, how 
to save money, how to make a decision at the super- 
market, how to fight City Hall, and the thousand other 
problems that most people do not know how to solve. 
Some of these subjects deserve to be treated national- 
ly; many of them are local. It should become normal 
procedure for the Program Fund to stimulate the local 
level of programming. A strong local show can serve as 
an example to other local stations. Secondly, a poten- 
tially national program idea can be tried out and 
developed on the local level without too great an expen- 
diture of funds. Thirdly, it is on this local level that 
writers, directors, and producers can be trained. Lastly, 
local programs provide the best possible farm-league 
for discovering on-the-air talent. Therefore, in five years 
time it should be automatically assumed that the Pro- 
gram Fund will underwrite at least 5 thirteen-week local 
series each year. The cost would be 5 million dollars. 

All the above general programs will include the in- 
terests and concerns of minorities. It is still necessary, 
however, to create programs which stress their achieve- 
ments and which will contribute to a better understand- 
ing by the general audience. For example, a series of 1 
hour programs called "Woman of the Week" would 
allow public broadcasting to focus on a wide range of 
achievements in the fields that are not necessarily 
celebrated. The candidates would be congresswomen 
and athletes; but more often they would be teachers, 
engineers, soldiers, and lawyers. This series would cost 
9 million dollars. In addition, the Program Fund will 
seek to stimulate programs on a local level dealing 
specifically with minority issues and aiming at the 
minority audience. 

After the enormous impetus given to children's pro- 
gramming by CTW, public broadcasting has failed to 
come up with ideas as striking and successful as 
SESAME STREET. It is the obligation of the Fund to 
work toward the creation of a steady flow of strong 
children's programming both in school and out of 
school and aimed at pre-schoolers, in-schoolers, and 
high schoolers. The Children's Television Workshop 
needed 8 million dollars 12 years ago to create a 1 hour 
program year-round. It would need between 15 and 20 
million dollars now to accomplish the same objective. It 
is estimated that five years from now public broadcast- 
ing will need between 22 and 30 million dollars to pro- 
vide a one hour daily program year-round, on the 
highest level of quality. Occasional children's special at 

Lewis Freed man 

the rate of 6 a year would cost 4 million dollars. 

Perhaps the most important area of programming lack- 
ing at present concerns spiritual, physical, and mental 
health. It has become more and more evident that an 
enormous educational effort must be started to make 
Americans aware of their personal health problems. 
Medical self-care: diet, exercise, smoking, drinking, 
might take priority over everything else as an essential 
part of public broadcasting's responsibility nor can 
these subjects be treated casually in an uninspired 
manner and underproduced, as are the usual early 
morning calisthenics and the once-a-year scare special. 
Working with the Office of the Surgeon General toward 
a series of programs encorporating entirely new ap- 
proaches to the subject, the Program Fund could raise 
the health consciousness and change the habits of the 
public. The cost would be 1.5 million dollars for 13 half 
hours, 4.5 million dollars for a season of 39 weeks that 
deals with mental and physical health. 

Lastly, there is a general agreement in this country that 
we are going through a period of spiritual malaise. If 
nothing else, the Program Fund should be responsible 
for a series of programs that will awaken a concern and 
create a dialogue on the subject of moral and ethical 


values. If successful, such a series of program efforts 
would almost justify in themselves the existence of the 
Fund. Here again, an attempt must be made to create 
new forms and to find new approaches if it is to attract 
an audience that is indifferent to the "old fashioned" 
dialogue. The cost of such an effort would be 4 million 
dollars for 26 half hours. 

In short, all the above provide the barest sketch of what 
would be possible if sufficient funds were available. 
Part II outlines the real situation as it exists presently 
and for the next two fiscal years. It will not include the 
possibilities that substantial private underwriting might 
stimulate. It does not include the programming that will 
emerge as time goes by and the national community 
changes. Nor can it conclude the unpredictable 
creative ideas that will emerge from independent pro- 
ducers and public television stations. 

But, until a sufficient amount of money is diverted to 
programming, the Program Fund's impact on the na- 
tional schedule will be limited on the occasional 
special, the occasional drama, the occasional mini- 
series, or the occasional 13 week series. Experience 
has shown us that occasional programming is not suffi- 
cient to attract a genuinely national audience. 


i 1 


On December 18th, AIVF sponsored a screening of SONG OF THE CANARY, at Millenium in NYC. Filmmakers 
Josh Hanig and Dave Davis were present to discuss the controversy surrounding the airing of their film on PBS. 
The film examines occupational hazards in two very different fields: workers exposure to dangerous chemicals 
in a California petrochemical plant, and a cotton factory in S.C., where workers have been suffering from Brown 
Lung disease for generations. 

For the last ten months, WNET put up the money for the proj- 
ect, so they own the TV rights. But once they saw the film, 
they decided that they would not show it unless we would 
agree to re-edit certain sections and change some of the nar- 
ration. They were primarily concerned with the cotton dust 
section: they felt we were unfair to the industry, and didn't 
give them enough credit for what the industry was trying to do 
for the workers. They said that unless we would agree to 
numerous changes, they would not show the film. So, for the 
last ten months we've been battling over that issue. There 
were several steps in the process. They finally told us that if 
we found a station somewhere in the country that would spon- 
sor us, that would make a difference. So we did find a sponsor 
station in Madison, Wisconsin, and we also agreed to have a 
studio discussion to follow the film, in which industry 
representatives would be invited to speak, along with labor 
and consumer representatives. That, I think, probably helped 
to reassure them that at least another station would help 
assume responsibility rather than just PBS and Washington. 
So they then agreed to broadcast the film. As of now at least 
as far as we know verbally, the film will be on this spring. 
Meanwhile it's been distributed nationwide to union and labor 
education programs, colleges, libraries and everyone that we 
can find. 

Question: How did you select the factory to film? 

We went down to the Carolinas and made contact with the 

Carolina Brown Lung Association, and got suggestions from 
them as to which mills had allowed media in the past, and we 
approached those same mills again. We had a sense that they 
made an industry-wide decision that they would show us one 
mill and it would be one of their best. This man in the film was 
at the time head of the mill owners organization, and also he 
owned one of the newer mill buildings in SC. So he agreed to 
let us film in his mill, and all the others turned us down. They 
knew that we were coming in well before, and there was a big 
sign that welcomed us. We had gone into another mill several 
weeks before and looked around; it was also considered a 
model mill in terms of its cleanliness. Everytime you turned a 
camera in a certain direction, there would be somebody 
sweeping the floor. They were really careful to not let us 
visually see the dust. The mill that we were in before was very 
different. You looked out over theworks and all the machinery 
and it was just a haze, it looked like a fog; and the mill we 
filmed really didn't look that way at all. So it's comparatively 
very clean. Then we were surrounded by six mill executives, 
one with each of us, barraging us with public relations spiels. 
So Josh and I were continually occupied, but we had mapped 
out a strategy with the camera and the sound person so they 
knew what they were looking for already. They went off on 
their own, while we worked the counter-strategy of keeping 
them busy and letting them tell us all about the mill. Mean- 
while our crew was shooting everything they could see to il- 
lustrate the situation. 9 

Song of the Canary __ 

In the first half of the film you saw the workers with those 
masks on. But during the time that they were working and ex- 
posed to DBCP before they became sterile, they were working 
in their shirtsleeves and not wearing those protective suits. It 
was only after the whole scandal that they were forced to put 
those masks on, and wear them in most of the chemicals they 
were running. After the scandal broke, we were allowed to 
come into the plant. They kept saying, "No, you can't come in 
and film." Their strategy once the whole thing had broken 
was, rather than have people like us standing outside the 
plant, to let us in to film. In fact, it was household bleach that 
they were bottling on the day we were shooting, but they had 
the workers all suited up in their heavy-duty, most dangerous 
toxic substance gear to show the world how they were pro- 
tecting people. 

Question: Did making the film for public television change the 

I think ... we might have made a different film if we were not 
making it for PBS. If we had been making a film for trade 
unions, we would have made it more specific about exactly 
what workers can do about the problem given the fact that 
they work in a dangerous place, in a very concrete way. But 
because we essentially had in mind the public TV audience, 
we wanted to make a film that didn't jus talk about the prob- 
lem but raised it as a socio-political issue. In other words, if 
profits are to take priority over health and safety, does our 
society want to accept that? If not, we should start thinking 
about it on that level, not should we be wearing masks or hav- 
ing ventilators. It's partly important to think in the short term 
as to what can save people's lives, but it's also important to 
be thinking of it as a broader political and social issue. I don't 
think we censored ourselves or altered our perspective 
because we were concerned about PTV so much as because 
we wanted this film to be as useful as possible to the 
broadest segment of the US public. So the perspective of the 
film reflects our desire to have it be seen by a lot of people 
who might not necessarily know anything about the subject or 
be already convinced or have a left, anti-corporate perspec- 

Question: Has PTV shown any interest in the film? 

Well, oddly enough the public television station in SC, which 
is a state network, wanted to show the film just as it was 
before any changes were made and before the controversy 
arose. Partly because of the pressure put on them by the 
Carolina Brown Lung Association, they wanted to show it na- 
tionally for the whole system. PBS in Washington could stop 
that because they own the TV rights. So they said no local sta- 
tion would be allowed to show the film until they decided 
what's going to happen to it nationally. Stations in HA, Wl, 
SC, and other places were expressly interested in showing it, 
but we were not allowed to. 
Question: What are the reasons for the long delay at PBS? 

We can only speculate as to the real reasons. At different 
times, they've said they felt the film was unbalanced, that it 
was inaccurate, that it was unfair to the corporations, that it 
was poorly edited, that it should be shown as two separate 
films, that it was so good that it should be made even better, 
and all kinds of different things. They sent us a very long, 
detailed list of things they wanted in the film, which is a tricky 
way of saying the things they didn't want. Some of the things 
were really "crucial" issues, like, they wanted to know 
whether cotton was an organic or chemical substance 
(laughter); they wanted us to show how cotton was harvested. 
It was basically a case of what they thought were priority 
issues, and they didn't think workers' compensation was an 
important issue. A group of three people reviewed the film and 
said, "We're missing some crucial information here. To get 

that crucial information in, you have to take some of this other 
information out." They wanted us to tell "The Cotton Story," 
how it grows from a cotton ball, then in the department 
store, Macy's basement. If you've ever seen the show, you 
know that they'll sometimes do a pretty hard-hitting program 
on pesticides, but then there'll be long animated sequences 
on how something goes from being a molecule of a whale to 
being a molecule of DDT. We felt that kind of thing was totally 
out of the question. It would have required more money, more 
time, reshooting and re-editing, and of course they made no 
promise that they would give us this money. We spent a year 
calling them. They would say, "I'm really busy now, I'll get 
back to you." A week later your call hasn't been returned; then 
you're supposed to talk to somebody else in the department, 
and it's just a tremendous shuffle. Since they funded this film, 
you would think that they would really want to at least talk to 
you about putting it on the air. We felt like we were in a maze 
and we didn't know which way to go, who to talk to. The whole 
process was set up to make communication more difficult, ac- 
tually. The only written statement we got was a single-page 
typed list of maybe thirty or forty criticisms by the staff of the 
"MacNeil/Lehrer Report," who had looked at the film and had 
done shows on the same subjects — the in-house experts. We 
didn't know whether to take them all seriously, or to make all 
of the changes or what. So we wrote back our feelings about 
all the criticisms, point by point, and we asked them to let us 
know exactly which of the changes we should make. We have 
never, in a whole year, received anything in writing which told 
us exactly what they wanted us to do. The only thing they ever 
said, and this is all verbal, was that if the MacNeil/Leherer 
people were satisfied with the film, it would be shown, and if 
they were not, it would not. They have their legal liabilities to 
think about: if their in-house experts were not satisfied with 
the film, they might be legally vulnerable. If you open up the 
Columbia journalism review at random and look through it, 
you will often find an ad that says "Be informed about your 
world-watch the "MacNeil/Lehrer Report," brought to you by 
Allied Chemical." These are the people who were reviewing 
our film and deciding whether the content was objective or 

Now they act like they wanted it on all along. They say, "Hey, 
let's get this thing on the air, what's holding this thing up?" 
The difference is that we have a local station now, WHA in 
Madison, and they take the flak instead of PBS. What they told 
us was that if somebody complains about the film, PBS in 
Washington has no production facilities, so they can't pro- 
duce an equal time program that gives them an equal chance 
to respond to our film. But they can go back to the local sta- 
tion and say, "You have to make a program that gives industry 
a chance to attack the film." So the people in Madison are in 
that position. If they get enough heat from industry about our 
film, they will have to produce a talk show that will give in- 
dustry people equal time. It's possible that the talk show after 
the film will serve the purpose. It's almost built into the pro- 
cess that industry will nave a chance to respond; I think that's 
part of why they're letting it go. PBS probably would have 
been very glad to just let the film slide and die. Even now, the 
one last big barrier to people seeing the film on TV is that they 
are still asking the local stations to pay 20<t collectively for 
every dollar that CPB put into the film. That amounts to 14,000 
dollars that the local stations together will have to pay, ac- 
cording to formula based on the size of the station, for this 
film. Most of the stations won't pay it because they can get a 
cheaper documentary from TIME/LIFE Films or Films Inc. if 
they want to show a documentary. Plus this is a controversial 
film anyway. So it's very unlikely that the majority of stations 
will buy it, and we've been urging CPB to drop that completely 
and even give the film away to the stations. 


Upstate Report pant one 


During the last week of the 70s, The Kitchen's Media 
Bureau funded an FIVF-sponsored whirlwind tour of 7 
upstate New York media centers. Because dispropor- 
tionate attention has been focused heretofore on 
facilities in New York City, we — Ann Volkes, of Elec- 
tronic Arts Intermix and Anthology Film Archives; Gerry 
Pallor, most recently of Young Filmakers/Video Arts; 
and I — felt that readers of THE INDEPENDENT would 
benefit from a greater familiarity with what the rest of 
the state has to offer. So we set out to absorb as much 
first-hand information as we could in four days. 

What follows is a summary of our explorations. Due to 
space limitations, it is brief and impressionistic. 
Anyone can write to these places for equipment lists; 
we wanted to convey the subjective "feel" of each envi- 
ronment, which significantly affects the work produced 
or exhibited there. A full report with more detailed infor- 
mation is in preparation, and will be available from FIVF 
in the near future. 

207 Delaware Ave. 
Buffalo, NY 14202 
(716) 847-2555 

Workshops/Equipment Access: 

Kurt Feichtmeir 
Film Programmer: Bruce Jenkins 
Video/Electronic Arts Curator: 

John Minkowsky 

We were most impressed by the Media Study building, 
an old hotel on a busy downtown street. Space is what 
they have plenty of, from a huge, high-ceilinged, 
windowless ballroom, rendered acoustically dead by ex- 
posed fiberglass insulation, to an empty swimming 
pool with a 7-second echo. The former is generally used 
for video installations; the latter is being developed as 
an audio recording/performances space. 

Exhibition is paramount here. Media Study's two en- 
thusiastic full-time staff curators are eager to hear from 
artists with completed work for potential installations 
and screenings. Mail your film or tape with insurance 
and return postage; references and phone calls are 
helpful. Even if they can't offer a show in the near 
future (bookings are about four months in advance), it's 
a good idea to make your work known to these folks. 

The equipment program is geared toward local small- 
format producers, with a strong emphasis on audio, in- 
cluding a professional quality sound synthesizer, 
4-channel mixer and tape recorders. Half and %" video 
editing systems and a Rutt/Etra synthesizer are housed 
in warm, bright rooms. Portable video equipment is 
loaned for use in Buffalo only. Prices are low; a deposit 
is required; reserve equipment by phone and bring iden- 


P.O. Box 21 (716) 325-7500 

Rochester, NY 14601 Coordinator: Carvin Eison 

Rochester's PBS station, WXXI-TV, occupies a spiffy 
modern building located between Eastman Kodak's cor- 
porate headquarters and Interstate 490. At present, the 
NYSCA-funded Television Workshop is allotted two 
rooms, a %" editing lab and an office area. The work- 
shop is active in three areas: equipment access, Post- 
production grants, and Artist-in-Residence grants. 

The five Artist-in-Residence grants are designed to help 
New York state video and filmmakers complete a work 
in progress or create a work from inception. Each grant 
provides 3 A" portable recording equipment, including a 
3-tube camera; and editing facilities in the TVW's semi- 
automated % " BVU Lab, including time base corrector 
and color corrector. Tape, travel and a small honorarium 
are also provided. The four Postproduction grants pro- 
vide access to WXXI's Ampex 1" convergence editing 
system, plus the lab facility, travel and a stipend. 

The second application deadline for the latter is coming 
up on March 28. Selection criteria emphasize "broad- 
cast quality production". Copyrights and ownership are 
retained by the video-maker, with exclusive broadcast 
rights going to WXXI for a three-year contract period. 
The TVW makes every effort to market and distribute 
the finished product. Carvin Eison, the outgoing and 
personable coordinator, is primarily concerned with 
handling the productions with quality, speed and effi- 
ciency, and making sure that the collaborations are a 
positive experience for both the producers and WXXI's 
Public Broadcasting Center. Access to this facility is 
generally during regular business hours. 

1255 Univerty Ave. 
Rochester, NY 14607 

(716) 244-1259 
Director: Bob Shea 

Residents of SoHo-style industrial lofts should feel at 
home in Portable Channel's renovated warehouse. It 
was chilly the day of our visit, having just been reopen- 
ed after Christmas weekend. But the vibes are warm 
and the energy level high here. PC is busy with a wide 
variety of programs, mainly serving the Genesee region. 
The facility includes video editing rooms, workshops, a 
video archive, and a gallery for closed-circuit exhibition. 
A film equipment access and workshop program is be- 
ing developed, an audio program begins in April, and a 
live cable injection point is a possibility. 

A rental program provides small-format video equip- 
ment, including a new 3-tube camera, and is mainly for 
local community service-oriented projects. Editing is 
done on four V2 " decks plus a new JVC % " system, and 


Upstate Report 

film and slide chains; 24-hour access can be arranged. 
Rental fees vary, with PC members at the low end and 
commercial producers at the high end of the scale. 
Familiarity with the equipment must be demonstrated 
by a test, or a Saturday workshop taken. PC's educa- 
tional programs involve artists-in-residence, visiting ar- 
tists and a summer workshop. 

To date, by tradition and demand, their production work 
has been largely documentary. About 40 of their pro- 
grams have been broadcast over the local PBS affiliate, 
and PC has maintained good relationships with local 
commercial stations. Bob Shea wants to increase the 
organization's emphasis on production, for cable, 
broadcast, gallery and closed-circuit. 


103 College Place (315) 423-3100 

Syracuse, NY 13210 Executive Director: Henry Baker 

Synapse is located on the campus of Syracuse Univer- 
sity. This brings certain advantages, such as in-kind 
support and free space for the offices, and many 
restaurants, bars and other college-town amenities 
within walking distance for the user. (Says staffer Alex 
Swan, "We show our producers a good time.") 

But there are also disadvantages. Synapse's main at- 

traction — broadcast quality CMX computer editing, 
interfaced with 2" VTRs — is housed in and shared 
with the Public Communications School. Synapse grant 
recipients have access to the system from 6 pm to mid- 
night on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 
only. As 2" editing is more cumbersome than %", you 
should plan for several visits. 

This was the only place we visited that serves a 
national constituency, awarding about 30 grants an- 
nually. In addition to a rough edit, applications should 
include resume, project description with approximate 
number of edits and types of special effects needed, 
shooting ratio, and budget. Extensive planning and 
dialogue with the staff will ensure satisfactory 

A mandatory charge of $20 per hour covers the services 
of a professional engineer, a CMX editor and worktape. 
Other goodies available are film (16mm and Super-8) 
and slide (35mm) to tape transfer capabilities, and pro- 
motion of your finished product for sale or rent through 
Synapse's tape catalog. 

COMING NEXT ISSUE: Ithaca Video Projects, 
Experimental Television Center, Media Bus and IMAC. 




...AMERICA LOST AND FOUND, produced and 
directed by Lance Bird and Tom Johnson, will be aired 
on PBS April 18th as part of "Non Fiction TV", a weekly 
series of documentaries by independent producers now 
in its second season. AMERICA LOST AND FOUND 
uses archival material to document America during the 
Depression decade and is narrated by Pat Hingle (last 
seen as Sally Field's dad in NORMA RAE). The story of 
this film's funding sets an interesting precedent for in- 
dependents — a proposal written for the Media Study 
Center in Buffalo helped raise funds from the Indepen- 
dent Documentary Fund (PBS) as well as from NEH. 
AMERICA LOST AND FOUND, which got its first 
theatrical release in New York at Joseph Pap's Film at 
the Public, is also showing at Filmex in Los Angeles on 
March 20th. 

AIVF members out on the west coast should check out 
the schedule for Filmex, which will feature a good 
number of independent films, including Stewart Bird's 
and Deborah Shaffer's THE WOBBLIES. 

INDEPENDENTS AIR ON PBS ... We just received the 
schedule for PBS's Non Fiction TV series in its entirety. 
It starts off Friday, April 4th with DEADLY FORCE, 
Richard Cohen's documentary about police use of 
deadly force against unarmed suspects. Listed below 
are shows which will be aired in April. Make sure to 
check local schedules for times. The remainder will be 
listed in next month's Column. 

April 11: THIRD AVENUE by Jon Alpert and Keiko 


Johnson and Lance Bird 
April 25: NO MAPS ON MY TAPS by George 

by Rick Wise 

ON THE NATIONAL FRONT ... I wonder what kind of 
expertise someone with a long career in the Depart- 
ment of Defense can bring to CPB? Is the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting gearing up for a war with In- 
dependents in hiring Fred Wacker, the Defense Depart- 
ment's principal financial manager since 1976. He's 
just been named CPB Vice President and Treasurer. 

ORGANIZING FLASH ... The National Endowment for 
the Arts recently awarded a $11,000 grant to help spon- 
sor the Second National Conference of Media Arts 
Center Directors. Tom Lennon served as Conference 
Director of the 1979 MAC Conference at Lake Min- 
newaska, out of which the 1980 Conference has grown. 
It is slated to take place in Boulder on May 29-31, and 
will be hosted by Virgil Grillo and the Rocky Mountain 
Film Center. 

Our friends at the Media Alliance, a coalition group of 
New York Media Centers, just elected the following 
people to the Board of Directors: Pat Anderson of the 

ZBS Foundation, Ft. Edwards; Henry Baker of Synapse 
Video Center, Syracuse; Carol Brandenburg, WNET-TV 
Lab, New York; Margot Lewitin from Women's Interart 
Center in NYC; Nathan Lyons of the Visual Studies 
Workshop in Rochester; Michael Rothbard, IMAC in 
Bayville; Carlotta Schoolman of The Kitchen Center in 
NYC; David Shapiro from Media Study in Buffalo; and 
Bob Shea of Portable Channel, Rochester. 

Janet Cole was recently appointed Director of 
Marketing/Distribution for Iris Films/Iris Feminist Col- 
lective, Inc. 

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE ... An important political 
documentary, Barry Brown's and Glenn Silber's THE 
WAR HOME has been nominated for Best Documentary 
by the Academy Awards, along with Ira Wohl's BEST 
BOY. Good to see such substantial work being 
recognized by the industry. 

BOOGIE WOOGIE TIME ... The Rockefeller Founda- 
tion recently funded BOOGIE WOOGIE X 3, a one hour 
television program featuring three of New Orleans' 
greatest piano players, "Tuts" Washington, Prof. 
Longhair, and Allen Toussaint. The show was taped in 
early February at Tipitina's in New Orleans. A video 
project of the Contemporary Arts Center, the program 
was produced by Stevenson Palfi in association with 
Eddie Kurtz. Palfi is planning to air the show nationally 
over PBS. 

ART WORK . . . The Labor Institute for Human Enrich- 
ment, a non-profit foundation created in 1978 by the 
AFL-CIO, has embarked on a major project, the Employ- 
ment and Training Program for the Arts, Entertainment 
and Media Industry, designed to ease chronic unem- 
ployment in a field with the highest jobless rates in the 
country. The three-part program intends to 1) stimulate 
more private-sector jobs for' performers and tech- 
nicians, particularly minorities, women, older workers 
and the handicapped in New York, Los Angeles and 
Chicago where most of the unemployed live, 2) 
establish national apprenticeship standards and pro- 
mote the adoption of apprenticeship programs in the 
industry and 3) design counseling services for union 
people seeking to change their jobs or career objec- 

MORE NEWS FROM NAMAC The National Alliance 

of Media Arts Centers (NAMAC) is planning a regional 
meeting for Monday, April 21st, at 1:00 p.m. Its purpose 
will be to discuss the draft proposals of the Steering 
Committee for NAMAC's organization and structure. 
Regional meetings are being held prior to the national 
meeting in Boulder at 12 sites around the U.S. This par- 
ticular meeting is important to the independent media 
community not only for the NAMAC discussions, but 
because increased regional cooperation and represen- 
tation is being sought. The meeting will take place at 
Millenium Film Workshop, 66 East 4th Street, and 
Robert Haller, on the Steering Committee, is the con- 
tact person in charge of information for New York 


The Column 

AND MINORITY ACTORS..." said Kathleen Nolan, 
President of SAG, at the October 29th press conference 
in New York at which the Annenberg School of Com- 
munications' study, "Women & Minorities in Television 
Drama, 1969-1978" was released in collaboration with 
the Screen Actors Guild. Further excerpts: 

• "The Annenberg School report on Women and 
Minorities ... is a clear indictment of network policies 
and employment practices." 

• "Of 47,000 members in SAG, close to half are female 
— and last year, only 400 of those, less than 2 percent, 
earned more than $10,000 at their craft." 

• "Earlier this month, almost 1,000 SAG members par- 
ticipated in rallies in New York and Hollywood, to pro- 
test the neglect of women and minorities on television. 
We were protesting the failure of the Association of 
Motion Picture and Television Producers to honor the 
affirmative action sections of our contract." 

• "The proportion of leading women characters has 
been rising from its lowest point in 1975-76 (25 percent) 
to its highest point in 1978 (37 percent of all prime time 
characters). However, total female representation has 
changed little, if at all, since 1969. Furthermore, the in- 
crease in female leads has been mostly white; there 
was no corresponding increase in the percent of non- 
white female leads." For more information, contact 
Anne Bowen, National Women's Agenda, Women's Ac- 
tion Alliance, 370 Lexington Avenue, NYC, NY 10017 
(212) 532-8330. 

INSIDE NEA . . . Information from the NEA newsletter 
about grant money allotted Services to the Field: 
Grants up to $25,000 for services to filmmakers, video 
artists, and radio producers. Received: 153 applications 
requesting $2,716,794; recommended: 80 grants total- 
ing $710,000. The grants fall into six categories: 
facilities and working spaces, 29; conferences, 16; com- 
bined services, 13; distribution, 10; information 
materials, 9; and research, 3. 

The cost of maintaining and replacing equipment was 
the most serious problem panelists discussed. The 
NEA panel decided the only reasonable solution to 
funding the large number of applicants was to grant 
30-40 percent of the amounts requested. The panel 
hoped that this less-than-ideal level of funding would 
provide leverage at least for foundation funds and in- 
creased local support. 

The National Association of Lesbian and Gay Film- 
makers, recently formed, and already active is putting 
out a call for membership and support. For information, 
contact either Richard Schmiechen, 301 West 19 Street, 
NYC, NY 10011 at (212) 691-7497 or Lucy Winer, 157 Gar- 
field Place, Brooklyn, NY, 11215 at (212) 768-2228. 

Make Public Television Public has tentatively schedul- 
ed public screenings of the four films dropped con- 
troversially by WNET from their INDEPENDENT FOCUS 
series. They are planned for the nights of April 15th and 
17th (two films will be shown on each date) and will be 


shown at Hunter College Playhouse theater, 695 Park 
STORY, by Kartemquin Films; A COMEDY IN SIX UN- 
NATURAL ACTS, by Jan Oxenberg; O POVO OR- 
GANIZADO, by Bob van Lierop; and FINALLY GOT THE 
NEWS, by Peter Gessner, Stew Bird and Rene 
Lichtman. For finalized dates and times, call Terry 
Lawler at 475-3720. 

February 21st, the Columbia-Dupont Journalism 
Awards were held. Independent filmmaking seemed to 
be the theme for the evening. Glen Silber received the 
first award given an independent for AN AMERICAN 
ISM — a documentary on Joe McCarthy. As he stepped 
to the platform to receive his silver trophy, he pointed 
out to the black-tie crowd that the only reason his film 
was able to say what it said was because it was in- 
dependently produced. These sentiments were echoed 
by Dorothy Tod, who won an award for her film, WHAT 
IF YOU COULDN'T READ, sponsored by the Vermont 
Humanities Council. Nancy Adair added to the chorus, 
proudly proclaiming WORD IS OUT to be "very indepen- 
dent" and putting in a word for Gay and Lesbian film- 
making. Tony Batten, a black producer for WETA in 
Washington, D.C. and presenter of the awards, capped 
the evening by knocking public television for their 
deplorable minority record. He declared that an un- 
named but infamous public television station, which 
could also be described as the largest in the nation, 
had a worse record NOW than they had had ten years 
ago. Then, at least ten minority producers worked at the 
station. At present, there are four, a dismal headcount, 
producing far too little. Ironically, all this was broadcast 
LIVE on Channel 13, a station that suspiciously re- 
sembles that "unnamed" station Batten referred to. It 
was also the place where Tony Batten used to produce 

Tom Lennon, Director of the 1979 MAC Conference. 

a film by YVOIMIME RAIIMERC1980) 

An article by ABBY TURNER 

Yvonne Rainer has described her recent film WORKING TITLE: 

"a long, discursive, fragmented discussion of political violence on the one hand. 
On the other, it's an account by a woman character in a psychoanalytic session of 
her odyssey from 1971, a year when she tried to kill herself while living in Berlin. 
The film is a constant paralleling of the activities of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang dur- 
ing that period, with her reflections on her own life and feelings about various 
historical women revolutionaries."' 

A more complete description of the elements of the film 
would include the following: 

"The voice of a young woman reading from the diary kept by 
an American adolescent in the 1950s." 2 

An unseen man and woman who prepare dinner, read from the 
memoirs of revolutionaries and discuss the readings. 

Printed titles and excerpts from memoirs and letters report 
acts of repression and reprisal in Germany over the past three 

A man and woman walk in front of the entrance to a church. 

A woman teaches another woman to play the baroque 

A woman reads a letter to her mother which she has written. 

A young man describes the construction of the Berlin Wall. 

Visual images include "aereil tracking over Stonehenge and 
the Berlin Wall; views from train windows and apartment win- 
dows in Berlin, London and New York City; tracking along 
Berlin streets; objects on a mantle-piece. . ." 3 

While these elements are not united by a narrative construct, 
they are not unrelated. Rainer has said: 

"I don't start out with a whole. My process is one of accretion and then finding the 
underlying connections, either thematic or visual or psychological or temporal or 
whatever, after I have accumulated things that interest me."' 

The discovery of those underlying connections is also a part 
of the experience of viewing the film. 

Rainer's use of narrative is not a simple one. 

"Narrative produces an expectation and effect different from those produced by 
the distillations, transmutations, and perambulations and between meaning and 
sound that characterize poetry. It also stands in opposition to the parataxic, a 
method or ordering that in its emphasis on the discreteness of things, presumes 
their a priori relatedness or equivalence, a relatedness that is not always im- 
mediately evident. Evidence and qualification are not as crucial to a paratoxic 
method of ordering materials as to a narrative one. The latter continues to over- 
whelm and intimidate us with its hierarchies of contingent facts; its hordes of 
psychological priorities, circumstantial details, and extenuating circumstances; its 
excesses of circumspection — or irresponsibility, as the case may be — in reveal- 


JOURNEYS FROM BERLIN/1971: a film by Yvonne Rainer (1980) 

ing or concealing particularities of location and time; its potential to produce 
endless speculation, discourses on the real and the plausible, mistaken identies, 
and chronic complications not to mention murder and mayhem. Is it any wonder 
that so many artists have given it a wide berth and a short shrift?"' 

Rather than give in to or give up narrative, Rainer exploits and 
subverts its power to her own uses. She makes use of a 
number of narrative and non-narrative elements which may oc- 
cur separately or simultaneously. Sound, image, and titles are 
used separately, in concert or at variance. Sound and visual 
tracks which have seemed unrelated momentarily seem to 
comment on each other. Objects found in one context are 
later found in another. Sentences begin and then shift direc- 
tion. Verbal continuity may be maintained in spite of changes 
in syntax and meaning. Her actors act, read, speak, move. 
Established narrative expectations are unfulfilled, frequently 
resulting in ambiguity. 

While much of the material of the work is strictly auto- 
biographical, which is narrative by nature, her techniques 
undermine the authority of narrative. This contradiction is 
used effectively in many ways, but it may be a source of con- 
fusion among some viewers. Referring to an earlier film, 
Rainer has recalled, "There was a perfectly obsessed young 
man in LA who asked me in six different ways at six different 
times during the course of the evening what exactly in 
WOMAN WHO was true and what wasn't. I said I don't 
remember anymore. Who knows! Who cares!" 8 One explana- 
tion for this man's persistent questioning would be that he 
may have been reconstructing a narrative by piecing together 
autobiographical bits. Old habits die hard. 

In this film there is potential for similarly wilful readings. The 
film is most overtly concerned with political violence. It is the 
kind of subject which people have opinions about even if they 
are complex, unresolved, emotional and intellectual opinions. 
One would expect a film concerned with political violence to 
be propogandistic, stating the director's stance for or against 
it. The film presents a number of positions on the subject, but 
while Rainer is very much a presence as author-director, none 
of these is presented as her position. This fact, the urgency of 
the subject, and the refusal to dominate the viewer with nar- 
rative risks the possibility that the viewer may attribute one of 
the stances presented to the filmmaker. 

". . .my women will probably continue to vacillate between being fools, heroines, 
and — yes — victims. Victims of their own expectations no less than those of the 
opposite sex, or of prevailing social mores."' (italics mine) 

This statement is from a 1975 interview done while Rainer was 
working on her previous film KRISTINA TALKING PICTURES. 
In that film she studies the theme of people as victims of their 
own expectations, a study continued in JOURNEYS. In this 
film some of the sources of these expectations are located. 
While this is a form of self-victimization, the sources of many 
of these expectations are cultural institutions and traditions. 
The cycle of expectation and disappointment is one of the uni- 
fying aspects of the film. Although the particulars vary, the 
consistency of this cycle allows much of the cutting from one 
narrative thread to another to be done without the extreme 
discontinuity which might be expected. 

"(Voice of a young girl reads:) April 27th, 1951. Yesterday I went to an assembly in 
306. A girl sang "Come, come, I love you truly" from THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER. 
As she sang I began to feel the most peculiar sensations. Cold shivers were wrack- 
ing my entire body. Clammy currents ran all over me. I thought I was sick, but when 
she had finished, the shivers left me. Very often these sensations come to me 
when I hear or read of some outstanding experience of bravery or perseverence, or 
a story of great emotional appeal. Sometimes these stories are absolutely corny or 
excessively melodramatic, like the one Louise Utis told in Oral English the other 
day about a G.I. who corresponds with a girl whom he intends to marry as soon as 
he returns from the war. His face is left badly scarred, and he is also crippled after 
a battle. The day before his ship is to dock in the U.S. the girl is hit by a car. She 
suffers a serious brain injury which results in blindness. There was some dramatic 
closing which I can't remember. At any rate, during the last few sentences I had the 
chills. I really fight against them because basically I reject such stories for their 
contrived nature and unreality. Intense drama is so removed from my own life that 
it leaves me with an empty feeling. I was also irked by the melodramatic manner of 
delivery. Then what in God's name do those damned shivers mean?"" 

This is one of the opening texts of the film. Given Rainer's 
statements about narrative, it is not surprising to find this 
diary entry introducing the film. The ability of narrative to 
overwhelm or bypass intellect is discussed here without dis- 
crediting or denying the lump in the throat. The ambiguity 
caused by the irresolution of emotion and intellect will recur 
both as subject and technique. 

The above quote also exemplifies the way in which people 
may be victims of their own expectations. The diarist writes 
"Intense drama is always so removed from my own life that it 
leaves me with an empty feeling." 9 The chills indicate that the 
cycle of identification, expectation and disappointment has 
been completed although that cycle has been collapsed into a 

"By the time I was assemblying the script of WOMAN WHO. . .I was interested in 
plain old Aristotelian catharsis. I wanted the audience to be swept away with pity 
and, if not terror, then a strong empathetic unease. The intertitle 'She grieves for 
herself.' stays on for a good 15 seconds. I wanted to impregnate the audience with 
the depth of that grief. It is still a very uneasy moment for me to watch; is too easy 
to see it as a kind of self-pitying indulgence."' 

The following text from JOURNEY runs the same risk, a risk 
increased by isolating it as a text from the context of the film. 
The text occurs in a therapy session. These sessions 
dominate the film. Their arrangement is very formal: the Pa- 
tient faces the camera; the Therapist sits behind his/her desk 
with his/her back to the camera; the Therapist is played alter- 
nately by a man/woman/boy. The sessions take place in a vast, 
dimly lit loft space. People appear in the distant background 
and engage in various unexplained activities. The density of 
the text, the stark staging, and the chiaroscuro lighting create 
a changeable atmosphere which is consistently disquieting. 

The telephone rings and the Woman Therapist answers it. In a 
voice-over the voice recognized as "He" from the soundtrack 
reads in a soft, rapid monotone a text in which he promises 
not to "bring up all that business about being such a low ele- 
ment" "as long as you'll like me a little."" As the Woman 
therapist hangs up, the phone rings again and the Boy 
Therapist picks up the receiver. The voice continues reading, 
but now there is a row boat on the Therapist's desk and the 
Patient wears "slinky" eye glasses. The caller is now compar- 
ing himself unfavorably with Katy Hepburn, Merle Oberon, Roz 
Russell, Rita Hayworth and Jane Wyman. 

"I never faced the music, much less the dawn; I stayed in bed. I never socked 
anything to anybody; why rock the boat? I never set out to get my man, even in the 
mirror; they all got me. I never smiled through my tears; I choked down my terror. I 
never had to face the Nazis, much less- their night. Not for me that succumbing in 
the great task because it must be done; not for me the heart beating in incompre- 
hensible joy; not for me the vicissitudes of class struggle; not for me the uncertain- 
ties of political thought. . . ."" 

Here he is interrupted as the Patient discusses her experience 
of pain. Then in a voice-over "She" reads: 

"This is by Angelica Balabanoff. 'I knew that I was a very fortunate person. The suf- 
fering and struggles of these intervening years — unlike those of my childhood 
and youth — had meaning and dignity because they were linked to those of 

The male voice-over continues — 

. . .not for me a struggle for meaning and dignity. As for humanity, save it for the 
Marines, not for me. I'm nothing but a. . . ." 

at which the boy therapist hangs up. 

This is an emotionally overloaded text. While it is a text that 
will succeed in sweeping the audience away, the danger is 
that it may also be rejected as "self-pitying indulgence." The 
techniques used are distancing tactics and the insertion of 
disjunctive elements. One Therapist is instantaneously replac- 
ed by another; a row boat appears on the Therapist's desk; the 
Patient wears "slinky" eye glasses. The caller's voice is male 
while we would expect this text to be written by a woman; the 
text is read in a soft, rapid monotone; the only narrative con- 
nection between verbal and visual elements is the telephone. 
This treatment of the text is contrary to traditional narrative 

Toward the end, the tirade begins to shift. The brave acts 
he/she is unable to live up to change from those of Hollywood 
heroines to those of revolutionaries. The acts of revolutionary 
figures lack the assistance of Hollywood in making them com- 
pelling to a mass public. They may have greater force than 
those fictional acts of bravery because they have been done, 
rather than portrayed. 

"(Patient). . .No, we're not nearly there. The worse of my malignancies are still to 
come. At the risk of bragging, let me put it this way: You know how I hate famous 
people, especially live ones. What I am about to confess is so embarrassing that I 
must resort to the third person singular. I must also emphasize that this person — 
whoever she is — is the embodiment of a specific social malaise for which neither 
she nor I can be held accountable. Much as I would have liked to believe that I am 
unaffected by the corruptions of modern life — and we're talking about me now — 
me, your original Independent woman earning her own living, thinking her own 
thoughts, carving her own coattails. Then one day whadyya know, there she is be- 
ing courted by Samuel Beckett, pursued across the ocean by Samuel Beckett, 
fallen in love with by Samuel Beckett. And then guess what? The very next day — 
and this Is after two days of sex and loving companionship with Samuel Beckett 
delicieux — There he Is, buying her clothes, with her along of course, in. . .in. . . 

Therapist: Bloomingdale's? 

Patient: OK Bloomingdales. . .and all she ever wanted was [a hug] and a cuddle. 
Not shoes, believe me, not shoes. Look, you can tell me till you're blue in the face 
that you're not God. I may agree momentarily, but I'm not going to believe you, not 
for love or money. And I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face modes of produc- 
tion and exchange, surplus value, commodity fetishism, and object-cathexis. But 
when the chips are down who do we find in Bloomingdale's spending the sperm? 

Therapist: What do you mean? 

Patient: You heard me. I said ["spending the sperm."] And then to top it off I said to 
him, "I don't want to harden myself against my distress as the only way of coping 
with it." He misunderstood and thought I wanted to pardon myself for my new 

Therapist: Who misunderstood? 

Patient: Samuel Beckett, goddammit, Samuel Beckett (She is shouting.) And fur- 
thermore, my cunt is not a castrated cock. If anything, it's a heartless asshole! (At 
"castrated cock" the contents of a bucket of water are thrown across the frame, 
left to right in slow-motion, without sound.)"" 

Here a famous person, Samuel Beckett, is the subject of ad- 
miration. In this case rather than want to be him, the Patient is 
loved by him. This, again, is despite her rejection of "famous 
people." Rather than attempt to unravel all of the intricacies 
of this complex text, there are a few points I would like to 

The deification of the Therapist is a recognition of his/her 
authority and the extension of it as absolute authority. The Pa- 
tient repeatedly tries to define their relative value and mutual 
obligation. She states, "You owe me everything: I owe you 
nothing." 16 "Paying you money gets me off the hook." 17 "But 
just you watch out when I feel like your equal: I'll walk out 
without a backward glance and why should you mind?'™ 

Related to the investigation of egalitarian relations is the 
problem of an "authoritarian regime expropriating individual 
moral responsibility." 19 

"(Patient). . .What I mean is that I have to be careful. I find the idea of an 
authoritarian regime expropriating individual moral responsibility — I find this 
much too attractive. Such expropriation is just one step removed from institu- 
tionalized proof of one's worth, or being rewarded for talent and effort which is like 
being congratulated for living, and being congratulated for breathing by a duly con- 
stituted authority is just one step away from institutionalized proof of my expen- 
dability. All this is much too irresistible, don't ask me why just now."" 

The attractiveness and danger of submitting to authority is 
taken from a personal level to a political level. 

Returning to the Beckett text, the Patient had said '"I don't 
want to harden myself against my distress as the only way of 
coping with it.' He misunderstood me and thought I wanted to 
pardon myself for my new dress." 21 

Often the texts operate on several levels and often humor is 
one of them. Techniques of humor include displacement, mis- 
understanding, and surprising juxtapositions all of which are 
techniques used by Rainer. Humorous stories place a ripple in 
the narrative, then allow the narrative to recover itself. 
Rainer's assault on narrative is ultimately more severe. While 

Beckett's misunderstanding is funny, if we are to believe the 
narrative it is also distressing for the patient. 

Also in this text Beckett takes the Patient to Bloomingdale's 
where he buys her shoes and a new dress. She goes on to talk 
about "modes of production and exchange, surplus value, 
commodity fetishism and object-cathexis" and nonetheless 
finds herself in Bloomingdale's "spending the sperm," 
Somehow spending money and sex are equated and the Pa- 
tient is left with shoes rather than the hug which she had 

"It's probably true that this contagion started spreading in the 
seventeenth century when they brought in silvered mirrors, 
self-portraits, chairs instead of benches. The self- 
contemplative self and the personal as a. . .slave?. . .the per- 
sonal as a slave of autonomy and perfectability."" Chairs in- 
stead of benches may seem like an over-subtle point, but a 
chair — like anything else — can be understood as a tool of 
socialization and as a symbol for the autonomy and perfec- 
tability of the self. 

If this contagion started spreading in 17th century Europe, it 
has long since been brought to the New World where it has 
flourished and taken new forms. 

"Patient: Somehow I always thought that the great American invention, "being in 
touch with your feelings," would make a better person out of me. What a shock to 
discover that feelings can erode not only one's best interests, but one's con- 
science. How shocking to discover that decisions are so much easier without "be- 
ing in touch" with one's fear, anger, and envy."' 3 

"Being in touch with your feelings" is a favorite American pur- 
suit. Having pursued it, the Patient seems to have concluded 
that it promises more than it delivers. It is a goal that can be 
pursued with the expectation that it will "make a better per- 
son out of me," but this, like other expectations, may end in 

Psychology plays another important role in this film in its 
ability to generate explanations. 

"Patient: Don't worry; I'm well aware of more plausible excuses: such as my in- 
jurious past. A cruel father, a doting father, an indifferent mother, a dead mother; I 
was only a child, first child, youngest, middle; I grew up in poverty, wealth, the 
nineteenth century? My daddy called me Cookie? My grandfather fled a program?" 

She: Angelica Balabanoff was the youngest of nine children. Olga Liubativich's 
mother died when she was an adolescent. Elizaveta Kovalskaia's mother was a 
serf. Emma Goldman's father beat her. Vera Figner had elegance, education, in- 
telligence and the ability to conduct herself properly in all social circles. Vera 
Zasulich's father never sat her on his knee or called her Cookie. A racial bigot who 
had been accused and acquitted of bombing a synagogue burst into tears one day 
and sobbed that his mother had always hated him and somehow he was getting 
back at her."" 

The Patient offers these excuses to explain her professed lack 
of humanity, but many of them are mutually exclusive and 
while any one of them could be accepted as an excuse, the 
over-abundance of excuses calls into question this type of ex- 

"He" and "She" read from the memoirs of a number of 
historic terrorists, discuss the lives of the terrorists and ques- 
tion their motives. "She" asserts "A lot of their violent acts 
were carried out in a spirit of personal revenge rather than 
social justice."" Their argument boils down to whether these 
acts are to be allowed to stand on their own or is their value to 
be qualified by the circumstances surrounding them. It is a 
question not resolved by the film. 

The film is left open ended. There is a continuing search for 
resolution which implies an optimism characteristic of 
Rainer's films. 

^rom a lecture by Yvonne Rainer quoted by Caroline Hall Otis, 
"Yvonne Rainer: Minimal Moves to Minimal Movies," Min- 
nesota Daily, Arts and Entertainment section, December 1979, 
pagel. \ 7 

WORKING TITLE: JOURNEYS FROM BERLIN/1971 - A film by Yvonne Rainer 

2 " Working Title: Journeys from Berlin/1971 a film by Yvonne 
Rainer," October 9, published by The MIT Press for The In- 
stitute for Architecture and Urban Studies, summer 1979, page 

3 lbid., page 89. 

'Interview with Yvonne Rainer by Lucy Lippard in "Yvonne 
Rainer on Feminism and her Film," The Feminist Art Journal, 
volume 4, number 2, summer 1975, page 11. 

5 Yvonne Rainer, "A Likely Story," unpublished paper delivered 
on September 3, 1976 at the Edinburgh Film Festival. 

6 Op. Cit., Lippard, page 9. 

'Interview tih Yvonne Rainer by the Camera Obscura Collec- 
tive, "Yvonne Rainer: Interview," Camera Obscura 1, Fall 1976, 
page 95. 

8 Op. Cit., "Working Title: Journeys from Berlin/1971 a film by 
Yvonne Rainer," pages 81-82, sentences deleted from this ver- 
sion of the filmscript which appear in the film are inserted 

9 lbid., page 82. 

10 Op. Cit., Camera Obscura Collective, page 10. 

"Op. Cit., "Working Title: Journeys from Berlin/1971 a film by 
Yvonne Rainer," page 95. 

12 lbid., page 95. 

13 lbid, page 95. 

"Ibid., page 95. 

,5 lbid., pages 94-95, words in parenthesis are elided from 
sound track, changes made from October 9 filmscript. 

16 lbid., page 93. 

17 lbid., page 93. 

'"Ibid., page 94. 

19 lbid., page 92. 

"Ibid., page 92. 

21 Ibid., page 94. 

22 lbid., page 93. 

"Ibid., pages 101-102. 

24 lbid., page 99. 

"Ibid., page 90. 




Seminar, June 1-6 in Harriman NY, will 
focus on works of ethnic minorities. 
Theme: the advantages of disparity. To 
submit completed work, write for list of 
program co-directors to Jaime Barrios, 
777 UN Plaza, 8th floor, NY NY 10017. 

development will be the topic of a series 
of workshops to be held at ten locations 
in non-metropolitan Minnesota. To sub- 
mit work for exhibition, send bio to 
Marion Angelica, Minnesota State Arts 
Board, 2500 Park Ave., Minneapolis MN 
55404, (612) 341-7170. 

26th ROBERT FLAHERTY Film Seminar, 
August 16-23, will examine the filmmak- 
ing process through the development of 
a number of artists. Preview submission 
deadline July 1. Contact John S. Katz, 
Dept. of Film, York University, 4700 
Keele St., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1P3 

seminar to be held March 24-25 in New 
York City, March 27-28 in Atlanta, and 
April 17-18 in Houston. Contact the Divi- 
sion of Continuing Education, University 
of Detroit, 4001 W. McNichols Rd., 
Detroit Ml 48221, (313) 927-1025. 

for the 80's is an international invita- 
tional conference to be held May 12-14. 
Fee $300, some grants available. Write 
World Communications Conference, 
Annenberg School of Communications, 
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 
PA 19104. 


28, Wednesdays 6-10 pm. Intro to basic 
S8 and 16mm production. Equipment 
provided, application and interview re- 
quired. $250 until March 14, $275 

Thursdays 7-10 pm. Intro to directing ac- 
tors, for film/TV professionals. Interview 
and resume required. Directors $220, 
observer/crew $75. 

RADIO WORKSHOP: April 19-20, Satur- 
day and Sunday, 10am-6 pm. Documen- 
tary production with emphasis on ac- 
tuality gathering, organization of 
material, editing and mixing. Ends with 
in-studio production for broadcast. $200 
until April 4, $215 thereafter. To register 
for any of these 3 courses, or for more 

info., contact Young Filmakers/Video 
Arts, 4 Rivington St., NY NY 10002, (212) 

discussion series continues on Tues- 
day, March 18, 7:30 pm with The In- 
dependent Producer and Cable TV. 
Panel members are Sheila Shayon from 
HBO, Janet Foster from TelePrompTer 
and Ann Beck from Manhattan Cable. 
Tuesday, March 25: Producing for Televi- 
sion; guest to be announced. $3.50 per 
event. For more info, contact Young 
Filmakers/Video Arts, 4 Rivington St., 
NY NY 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

CIATION Conference will be held April 
16-19 in Las Vegas. Contact Bobbette 
Kandle, ITVA, 26 South St., New Prov- 
idence NJ 07974, (201) 464-6747. 

FILM AND CULTURE is the theme of a 
conference to be held April 30-May 4. 
Contact Ohio Univ. Film Conference, 
Box 388, Athens OH 45701, (614) 

will be presented by the New England 
Cooperative Training Institute on Satur- 
day and Sunday, March 22-23, 10 am-4 
pm. Contact Arts Council of Greater 
New Haven, 110 Audubon St., New 
Haven CT 06511, (203) 772-2788. 

CINEMA STUDIES will be held March 
20-23. Contact Owen Shapiro, College of 
Visual and Performing Arts, Syracuse 
University, Syracuse NY 13210. 


KCET is planning an independent series. 
Send inquiries and descriptive informa- 
tion (no tapes yet) to Diane Tracey, 
KCET, 4401 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles 
CA 90027. 

WXXI's SECOND SIGHT series will pay 
$30/minute for films and tapes, from 
2-60 minutes in length. Contact Pat 
Faust, Director of Programming, WXXI- 
TV, PO Box 21, Rochester NY 14601, 
(716) 325-7500. 

arts cable TV station, seeks dance 
videotapes up to one hour in length. 
Contact Kathryn Lapiga, 11826 Kiowa 
Ave. #106, Los Angeles CA 90049. 

LOCAL TAPES SOUGHT for Northern Il- 
linois Cable. Contact Ms. K.C. Laing, 
Rockford Cablevision, 303 N. Main St., 
Rockford I L 61101, (815) 965-5700. 

IMAGE UNION, WTTW's weekly in- 
dependent showcase, continually seeks 

film and tapes. Contact Tom Weinberg 
or Ken Solarz, WTTW Channel 11, 5400 
N. St. Louis, Chicago IL 60626, (312) 

TAPES wanted for weekly documentary 
series on WMVS. Send inquiries and 
program materials to Don Burgess, Pro- 
gramming Department, Channel 10/36, 
1015 North 6th St., Milwaukee Wl 53203, 
(414) 271-1036. 

films and tapes made by women for 
distribution. Submit written description 
to Andrea Weiss, WMM, 257 West 19th 
St., New York, NY 10011, (212) 929-6477. 

anyone willing to pay postage to send 
tapes along to next person. Any and all 
subject matter. To receive or contribute 
tapes, write for application form to John 
E. Heino, 110 2nd St., Proctor MN 55810. 

BAY AREA INDIES are urged to submit 
films for possible screenings at Noe 
Valley Cinema and Intersection. Contact 
Steve Michaels, (415) 585-2687, or Karl 
Cohen, (415) 386-1004. 

WETA: color, b/w, 16mm, 2" or % ". Con- 
tact Patrice Lindsey Smith, Asst. Pro- 
gram Manager, WETA-TV, PO Box 2626, 
Washington, D.C. 20013, (202) 998-2809. 

TION looking to purchase regional 
documentary f ims under 60 minutes, for 
magazine-format PTV series on rural/ 
land use/natural resources topics. Con- 
tact Lovering Hayward, NHMF, Phoenix 
Hall, 40 N. Main St., Concord NH 03301. 

PRODUCERS INC. needs short films to 
distribute as fillers to PBS affiliates. 
Contact Jim McQuinn, 2700 Cypress St., 
Columbia SC 29205, (803) 799-3449. 

grams documentary and avant-garde 
films. Write Carl Davis, Program Direc- 
tor, Columbia Film Society, Main St., 
Columbia SC 29205. 

REEL RESEARCH seeks independent 
titles for Film Programmer's Guide to 
16mm Rentals. Contact Kathleen 
Weaver, P.O.. Box 6037, Albany CA 
94706, (415) 549-0923. 

screen and distribute political films rele- 
vant to Blacks. Contact Mary Emma 
Graham, Manager, Timbuktu, 2530 S. 
Michigan Ave., Chicago IL 60680, (312) 

films wanted by March 15. Write: Movies 



on a Shoestring Inc., Box 3360, 
Rochester NY 14614. 

LIST is used by all U.S. government ex- 
ecutive departments and agencies in 
soliciting videotape production pro- 
posals from the private sector. Any pro- 
ducer interested in doing video produc- 
tion for the government must be on the 
QVPL. Write for application forms to 
DOD Directorate for AV Management 
Policy, 1117 North 19 St., Room 601, 
Arlington VA 22209. 

MING WANTED: Entertaining graphic, 
real or surreal, unique and creative video 
images for broadcast on cable/micro- 
wave. Contact Richard Deutsch, 231 
Milwaukee St., #201, Denver CO 80206, 
(303) 399-1543. 

SHORTS. We are producers and distrib- 
utors of 16mm films for the educational 
and television market. Contact Bill 
Mokin at (212) 757-4868 or write: Arthur 
Mokin Productions, Inc., 17 W. 60 St., 
NYC 10023. 


Foundation, Inc. announces it will award 
Screen and Television Writing Fellow- 
ships. There are eight Fellowships, each 
with a stipend of $3,500. 

The initial funding for the Fellowships 
has come from the National Endowment 
for the Arts and from the New York 
State Council on the Arts. 

The Fellowships will be available to all 
writers and not limited to members of 
the Writers Guild of America. Applicants 
are required to submit a completed 
script or screenplay, whether or not pro- 
duced, and a detailed outline of the 
script to be written under the Fellow- 

Details of the Fellowships and requests 
for applications may be obtained from 
the Foundation of the Writers Guild of 
America, East, Inc. at 555 West 57th 
Street, 12th Floor, New York, New York 
10019. Questions may be refered to 
Craig B. Fisher, Executive Director, or 
Corrine Notkin, Administrative Director. 

Deadline for completed applications is 
May 1, 1980. 


REVIEW: a quarterly publication of 
reviews, interviews and reports on 
children's non-print media, is available 
for $15/year from the Media Center for 
Children, Inc., 3 West 29 St., NY NY 

15;000 listings of prerecorded tapes and 
discs — descriptions, producers, casts 
and awards, distributor names and ad- 
dresses — indexed by subject and title. 
$19.95 from National Video Clear- 
inghouse, Inc., PO Box 3, Syosset NY 

THE VIDEO HANDBOOK, 3rd edition, is 
a guide to preproduction, production, 
postproduction, distribution, and 
reference materials. $12.75 plus $2.00 
postage from United Business Publica- 
tions, Inc., 475 Park Ave. South, NY NY' 

TION, 2nd edition, by Mark Mikolas and 
Gunther Hoos, details how to select and 
use S8 equipment. $14.95 from United 
Business Publications, Inc., 475 Park 
Ave. South, NY NY 10016. 

details grants, trends, new projects and 
personnel, and other info, about public 
TV and radio. For sample contact PBR, 
1836 Jefferson Place, NW, Washington 
DC 20036. 

VIDEO, 2nd edition, by Joseph B. 
Sparkman of Volunteer Lawyers for the 
Arts, interprets the new Copyright Act 
of 1978 section by section, including 
registration procedure, terms and exten- 
sions, protection of unpublished work, 
and monetary recovery for infringement. 
$3.00 from Northwest Media Project, PO 
Box 4093, Portland OR 97208. 

UPDATE features an analysis of Third 
World cinema aesthetics by Clyde 
Taylor, and reports on the Alternative 
Cinema Conference and the Ouaga- 
dougou Film Festival. Write African Film 
Society, PO Box 31469, San Francisco 
CA 94131. 

mercially-oriented bimonthly newsletter 
for writers, featuring marketing tips on 
book deals by film producers. Contact 
Peggy D'lsidoro, 27812 Forbes Road #3, 
Laguna Niguel CA 92677. 

ARTS is a free report from NEA, 2401 E 
Street, NW, Washington DC 20506. 

available free from the Superintendent 
of Documents, US Government Printing 
Office, Washington DC 20402. 

ARTIST by Richard Helleloid is a down- 
to-earth, jargonless guide through the 
IRS maze for self-employed .artists. 
$4.95 from Drum Books, PO Box 16251, 
St. Paul MN 55116. 

cludes arts legislation non-profit in- 

terests, Capitol Hill directory, resource 
guide for lawyers, etc. Free from 
Washington Project for the Arts, 1226 G 
St. NW, Washington DC 20005. 

FESTIVALS lists contact persons, 
dates, entrance requirements, awards 
and other info, on over 70 festivals. $5 
from Learning Resources Services, 
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 
I L 62901. 


Trim bins, hot splicers, etc. Contact 
Susan Woll or Ron Blau at Central 
Studios, (617) 492-0088, 678 Mass. Ave. # 
403, Cambridge MA 02139. 

equipped rooms, 24-hour access in 
security building. 6-plate Steenbeck, 
6-plat Moviola flatbed, sound transfers 
from Va " to 16mm mag, narration 
recording, sound effects library, in- 
terlock screening room available. 
Cinetudes Film Productions, 377 Broad- 
way, NY NY 10013, (212) 966-4600. 

FOR SALE: Nizo S800 camera with S8S 
Xtal camera control, both in mint condi- 
tion. $550. Contact Frank Eastes, Jr. c/o 
Fresh Water Productions, 729 Otis Blvd., 
Spartanburg, SC 29302. 

FOR SALE: Uher CR-210 recorder, with 
S8S Xtal sync generator. Recorder 
needs new head. $300. Write Frank 
Eastes, Jr. c/o Fresh Water Productions, 
729 Otis Boulevard, Spartanburg, SC 

FACILITIES AVAILABLE: for artists, arts 
organizations, community groups and 
other non-commercial producers at low 
cost. One of these is the transfer and 
mix system which yields prof, quality 
sound transfers and mixes from 3 tracks 
of 16mm mag film. Contact Young 
Filmakers/Video Arts, 4 Rivington St., 
NY NY 10002 or call (212) 673-9361. 

FOR SALE: 1 Beaulieu 20008 ZM II with 
Schneider lens, 6-66mm filters, splicer, 
and a rewind device. $700. Call Missy at 
(201) 792-5915 evenings. 

WANTED: Moviola Upright 16mm sound 
head. Call (212) 486-9020. 

FOR SALE: Moviola rewinds, Zeiss 
Moviscop 16mm viewer, Bolex 10mm 
Switar lens. Call (212) 486-9020. 

FOR RENT: 3 A inch and Beta postpro- 
duction facility. Editing with time base 
correction, character generator, 
graphics camera, 4-track audio equip- 
ment, and dubbing in 3 A ", Beta, and 
VHS formats with technician. For per- 
sonal projects by independent artist/ 
producers, $20/hour. For all others, $40/ 
hour. Contact: Electronic Arts Intermix, 


Inc., 84 Fifth Avenue, NY NY 10011, (212) 


recently formed film and production 
financing company, is interested in 
developing new writers, directors and 
producers. We are currently accepting 
commercially viable screenplays and 
properties. Resumes and/or scripts 
should be sent to ATT. of: David Van 
Vort, Jr., President, Entertainment 
Equities, Ltd., 799 Broadway #507, NY, 
NY 10003. 

rent Affairs/Programming Office. Posi- 
tion requires B.A. or equivalent in jour- 
nalism or communications and four yrs. 
experience in journalism, news/current 
affairs/science TV production. Submit 
resume, references (3) and salary re- 
quirement to: Carole Dickert-Scherr, 
Director of Personnel, PBS, 475 L' Enfant 
Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20024. 

Association of Independent Film and 
Videomakers Media Arts Newsletter 
wants someone to work on commission 
to sell a couple of ads each month. Pro- 
ceeds are designed to commission a 
freelance story a month for MAN. Call 
(612) 376-3333 in St. Paul, MN. 

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Resp. for repair 
and maintenance of Sony helical scan 
videotape equipment. Knowledge of TV 
electronics and test equip, essential. 
Permanent position (20 hrs./week) 
w/benefits. Send resume to: NYU, 
Graduate Film and Television-Video 
Dept., 40 East 7th Street, NY, NY 10003. 
ATTN: Vito Brunetti. 

TEACHERS WANTED: Film in the Cities 
seeks teachers experienced teaching 
economically disadvantaged youths for 
a yr.-long film course. Knowledge of per- 
sonal filmmaking, Super-8 technology, 
sound recording, film history and 
aesthetics desired. Send resume to 
Dianne Peterson, Assoc. Director, Film 
in the Cities, 2388 University Ave., St. 
Paul, MN 55114. 

facility seeks experienced maintenance/ 
production engineer to run %" studio. 
Knowledge of color cameras essential. 
Duties include equipment setup and 
maintenance production work, and 
editing. Call VIDEO WORKS, (212) 

for new technical assistant. Duties: 
Design and maintenance and instruction 
in the use of Vz" and %" editing and 

portable systems. Requirements: Ap- 
titude in basic electronics, experience in 
% " video production and post- 
production, and ability to work well 
w/people and teach video skills. Salary 
contingent on qualifications. Contact 
Cindy Neal, (312) 565-1787. 

MIX TECHNICIAN: Requires ability to 
carry out 16mm mixes; mix experience 
preferred, or strong related backround 
(music mixing; professional sound 
editing & recording); familiarity w/ 
equalizers, limiters, mag recorders, 
Nagras, & related equip. Knowledge of 
basic video systems operation; ability to 
relate well to public; strong organiza- 
tional skills; previous supervisory exp. 
preferred; Bilingual Eng./Spanish helpful 
but not req. Contact David Sasser at 
Young Filmakers/Video Arts in NYC 

profit media equipment center seeking 
reliable person to work in equipment 
loan/postproduction dept. Requires 
good typing skills, previous public con- 
tact/telephone/clerical experience: some 
film/video experience preferable. Bi- 
lingual Eng./Spanish preferred. Contact 
David Sasser at YF/VA in NYC at (212) 

experience in NY working for indepen- 
dent producers. Call evenings after 5 pm 
for more information — Suzanne 
Hrichak(415) 431-3831. 

SOUGHT: by film student. No previous 
film work but would be willing to 
volunteer time in return for the ex- 
perience and knowledge gained. Con- 
tact Kathy at (415) 621-4424 between 9 
and 5 or 648-2908 after 6 pm. 

research/script development of 
historical/humanities project. Work 
would be on spec, includes some pro- 
duction work in film and photography. 
Contact Jay Miracle at (415) 564-5113. 

newly arrived in San Francisco with own 
complete feature-film shooting facilities 
seeks contact with ambitious profes- 
sional filmmakers, writers and per- 
formers interested in forming a filmmak- 
ing cooperative. Please call or write 
Reynir Oddson, 84 Norwood Avenue, 
Kensington (Berkeley) CA 94707, (415) 

PRODUCER WANTED for 2-hour video- 
tape of national music contest for PBS. 
Send letter of interest and resume to 
Professor Donald Scherer, Department 
of Philosophy, Bowling Green State 
University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. 


departments are requesting proposals 
for a PBS series on Architecture and 
Design. Independent production com- 
panies eligible if non-profit, tax-exempt. 
Deadline June 1, 1980. For guidelines 
and application contact Julia Moore, 
Programming in the Arts, Media Arts 
Dept., National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington DC 20506, (202) 634-6300 by 
March 15. 


LEGISLATURE'S 1980 budget has cut 
appropriations for the New York State 
Council on the Arts by 1/3, with 
devastating effects expected for media 
and other arts organizations and sup- 
port services. For info, on what you can 
do, contact Concerned Citizens for the 
Arts of New York State, PO Box 755, An- 
sonia Station, NY NY 10023, (212) 

ed a $16,000 grant from the McDonald's 
Corporation to sponsor seminars in 30 
cities on fundraising and proposal 
writing. For info, contact Carol M. Kur- 
zig, Director, Public Services, The Foun- 
dation Center, 888 Seventh Ave., NY NY 
10019 or call toll-free (800) 424-9836. 

for artists in financial distress due to 
age or disability. Write Artists' 
Fellowships Inc., 47 Fifth Ave., NY NY 

LIBRARY to help promote your opening 
is provided by The Public Relations 
Society of America, 845 Third Ave., NY 
NY 10022, (212) 826-1776. 

vides services, seminars, information 
and health insurance for self-employed 
people. Contact Ralph James, SSA, 
Crossroads Building, 2 Times Square, 
NY NY 10036, (212) 398-7800. 

NEA INFORMATION and applications in 
New York area available fast from 
regional representative John Wessel, 
110 West 15 St., NY NY 10011, (212) 

fire, eviction, unpaid medical bills, utility 
shutoff, etc. Contact Change, Inc., PO 
Box 705, Cooper Station, NY NY 10003, 
(212) 473-3742. 

through International Visual Artists Ex- 
change Program. Contact Deborah Gard- 
ner, Organization of Independent Ar- 
tists, Box 146, 201 Varick St., NY NY 
10014. 21 



WOMEN MAKE MOVIES is asking its 
friends to chip in $5.00 each towards the 
purchase of a new 16mm sound projec- 
tor. Please send check or M.O. to WMM, 
257 West 19 St., NY NY 10011, ATT: 
Janet Benn, or call (212) 929-6477. 

space to sublet for a minimum of 3 
months @ $150. Located at 490 Second 
St. #308, San Francisco CA 94107. For 
appointment call (415) 495-7949. 

WHAT JOBS have you taken to support 
your film and video production work? 
Send descriptions (to be used in a film) 
with address and phone # to Mike 
Fleishman, c/o FRAME/LINES, Athens 
Center for Film and Video, Ohio Univer- 
sity Dept. of Film, Lindley Hall, Athens 
OH 45701. 


9-11 in Amherst, MA now accepting S8 
and 16mm entries. Cash for best nar- 
rative, documentary, animated and ex- 
perimental. Write NEFF, Arts Extension 
Service, Hasbrouck Lab, U. Mass., 
Amherst MA 01003. 

San Rafael, CA. Open to amateur, stu- 
dent and independent filmmakers, 
16mm, op. sound, maximum length 30 
minutes. Entry fee $10; deadline May 30. 
Write Marin County Fairgrounds, San 
Rafael CA 94903. 

FESTIVAL, March 21-30. Contact USA 
Film Festival, Box 3105, S.M.U., Dallas 
TX 75275, (214) 692-2979. 

be announced) now accepting 16mm en- 
tries under one hour. Contact HFF, 
Theatre Arts Dept., Humboldt State 

Univ., Areata Ca 95521, (707) 826-3566. 

accepting 16mm or S8, optical or 
magnetic sound, or silent films. 
Deadline April 1; $10 entry fee. Write 
SFAI/FF, 800 Chestnut St., San Fran- 
cisco CA 94113, (415) 771-7020. 

1980 CINDY COMPETITION, September 
24-27, now accepting entries in film, 
video, audio, slides, filmstrips and multi- 
media. Entry fee varies; deadline May 1. 
Contact IFPA National Office, ATT: 
Cindy Competition, 750 East Colorado 
Blvd., Pasadena CA 91101, (213) 

June 21-22, accepting entries on health 
subjects. Write Mike Maver, Coor- 
dinator, JMMFF, 1601 Ygnacio Valley 
Road, Walnut Creek CA 94598, (415) 
939-3000 ext. 20384. 

FESTIVAL, August 25-30. Write Ottawa 
'80, Canadian Film Institute, 1105-75 
Albert St., Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7, 

CREDIT UNION helps women with sav- 
ings, loans and credit advice. Contact 
NYFFCU, 44 Carmine St., NY NY 10014, 
(212) 255-4664. 

TERNATIONAL is a professional society 
providing publications, seminars and 
workshops for writers of all levels of ex- 
perience. For information and applica- 
tions write Jane Ware Davenport, SAI, 
PO Box 7598, Dallas TX 75209. 

vides Super-8 and 16mm production and 
postproduction equipment to members 
($150/year) for non-commercial projects. 
Contact Dianne Peterson, Film in the 
Cities, 2388 University Ave., St. Paul MN 
55114, (612)646-6104. 

a basic %" editing system to its low- 
priced services to members. Contact 
CEC, 11 E. Hubbard, Chicago IL 60611, 
(312) 565-1787. 

materials, lab work, equipment, facilities 
and consulting available for S8 projects, 
on basis of need and quality of pro- 
posal. Contact R.G. Photographic, Inc.. 
1511 Jericho Turnpike, New Hyde Park 
NY 11040. 

Arts Council are now available. Deadline 
June 1 for Mini Grants up to $500. Con- 
tact OAC, 50 West Broad, Columbus OH 
43215, (614) 466-2613. 

REGISTRY can help you secure free- 
lance production work. Registration fee 
and sample tape required. Applications 
available from The Registry, Multi Media 
Productions, PO Box 1041, Virginia 
Beach VA 23451. 

SUPER-8 CINEMA (dates to be announc- 
ed) — contact Julio Neri, Latin Touch, 
Au Rio de Janeiro, Edificio Lorenal B, 
Apt. 52, Chuao, Caracas, VENEZUELA. 

accepting entries, will include S8 
showcase. No entry fee. Write FILMEX, 
2020 Ave. of the Stars, #630, Los 
Angeles CA 90067. 

LOCARNO, August 1980, is sending 2 
members of its selection committee to 
New York to screen independent 
feature-length fiction films. Theres 
Scherer and Bernhard Giger will stay at 
the Hotel Edison, 47th and Broadway, 
(212) 246-5000 from April 15-29. Contact 
Ms. Scherer at Kramgasse 26, 3011 
Berne, SWITZERLAND, (031) 22.39.27. 



JOE AND MAXI — A film by Maxi Cohen and Joel Gold 

From the Folks Who Are Taking Over Hollywood 

By Marjorie Rosen 

The most impressive autobiographical film I've seen 
recently is an enormous undertaking, a project four years 
in development. Maxi Cohen and Joel Gold's "Joe and 
Maxi" was begun after the death (from Cancer) of Maxi 
Cohen's mother; at that time the filmmaker decided to 
explore her ambivalent relationship with a gruff and 
withholding, yet provocative, father. ("He would approach 
me sexually, and other times he would beat me for leaving 
my shoes in the doorway.") On screen we see Maxi trying 

to explain herself to this difficult man; we see his joviality, 
his vitality, his inability to reach out to her. In the course 
of making this document, Maxi and her father learn he has 
cancer. The film becomes something else: a valiant struggle 
of a dying man to come to grips with his mortality; a way 
for his daughter to adjust to the loss and, in the last 
months of his life, to try creating bridges for 

reprinted from December 1977/Ms 

New York, N.Y. 10012 


New York, N.Y. 
PermirNo. 7089 

6S5 Broadway 



By George Griffin 


APRIL 1980 


I Independent: 


Vol. 3 no. 3 






THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Hal leek 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, 
articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence 
we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material to 
THE INDEPENDENT, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, NY, NY 10012. 
If you'd like your material returned to you please enclose a 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 

NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of month 
preceding publication, preferrably earlier. 














February 14, 1980 

John J. Iselin 


356 West 58th Street 

New York, New York 10019 

Dear Mr. Iselin, 

It is quite unfortunate for a Public television station to 
refuse to show our film 'Finally Got the News.' 

Prints of the film have been sold all over the world. The 
film has been shown at numerous festivals and has been 
aired on European television and Public Television in 
Detroit. The film is one of a handful of films that concerns 
itself with a Black workers' organization and therefore is 
heavily used by colleges, community colleges, churches, 
labor organizations, and especially by minority groups. 

The fact that NET calls the film "outdated" is not a logical 
argument. In fact, many of the same conditions exist in 
Detroit and continue to make the film vital. What the film 
depicts in 1970 in Detroit is important for all of us to 
know, as it is an important history that helps us see the 
present with more understanding. 

Any one of the filmmakers on 'Finally Got the News' would 
be happy to give a brief introduction on videotape and set 
the specific time and circumstances of the film. However, 
we suspect you are covering up for not wanting to show a 
film that you think is too political. The Independent Panel, 
made up of community representatives and independent 
filmmakers, is a crucial vehicle for selecting representative 
films. If NET flies in the face of this procedure we can only 
surmise that it is incapable of breaking away from its 
upper middle class British programming that fails to 

represent 90% of the people in the New York, New Jersey 
area. NET has not fulfilled its function as a Public Station, 
by exhibiting political repression using public funds. 

Peter Gessner 

Stewart Bird 

Rene Lichtman 

Center for Educational Productions, 

cc- Walter Goodman 

Inc. New York, N.Y. 

(See Mr. Goodman's article in this issue.) 

Dear Editor: 

Just a quick note to share my thoughts with you 
concerning the new format of the Independent. I find the 
expanded text to be more encompassing and truly 
informative regarding issues, concerns, and experiences 
that affect the independent producer. 

Its condensed and intelligently written articles provide a 
substantial and significant foundation bywhichideas may 
be generated and discussed. I feel the inherent complexity 
of the Telecommunications Rewrite Act has been beautifully 
articulated by the Independent, insuring an informed and 
knowledgeable constituency. I, for one, feel that the 
Independent is essential reading and look forward to future 


Nancy Sher 


Film Program 

iNfew York State Council on the Arts 

Walter Goodman : 
Right or Wrong 

For independent producers hoping to be broadcast on public 
television it is important to understand Walter Goodman, 
WNET's last word in independent programming. WNET's ex- 
ecutive editor, Goodman describes himself as "the final 
authority" for independent production on the air. This authori- 
ty is the station's means of executing their legal responsibility 
over transmission. It is the blade of what independents have 
historically felt as the station's ax, i.e. editorial control. The 
delicacy of the executive editor function is the fine line sta- 
tions walk between legal responsibility and censorship. Com- 
pounded by the absence of precise television standards, sta- 
tions' "final" programming decisions are rendered even more 
subjective. Therefore a considerable amount of personal and 
organizational discretion must be exercised by executive 
editors as they determine what the public television audience 
will get to see. This situation places a great responsibility in 
the hands of the men and women who, in determining pro- 
gramming, are also deciding just which audiences public 
television will serve and, given the diversity of independent 
producers, which producers will have access to that audience. 

WNET's selection of Walter Goodman is a good indication of 
the audience it seeks. How open-minded is WNET's executive 
editor to the Congressional mandate for diversity in public 
broadcasting: subject matter, political controversy, alternative 
perspectives, minority audiences, independent producers. . . ? 
His attitude toward independent producers is less than en- 
couraging: "Every independent film I've ever seen has the 
same point of view." Incidentally, this familiar condescension 
has not prevented WNET from applying to NEA and CPB (for 
one million dollars) to produce their very own independent 
series. (Goodman will presumably continue to serve as ex- 
ecutive editor.) NEA has already seen fit to award this 
"promising" independent series (originally entitled UP AND 
COMING) with a $100,000 grant; the application at CPB is still 
pending. The lack of promise for independent producers at 
WNET is perhaps most clearly seen in Goodman's meanness 
of spirit, revealed in the following article, originally published 
in the New Leader (Sept. 79). — Alan Jacobs 


by Walter Goodman 

Listening to the Third World 

To manifest the indignation of the freedom-loving people of 
the Third World at the brutal treatment of the people of the 
West Bank by the Zionist lackeys of American imperialism, 
not to mention the vicious assaults of their capitalist masters 
on Andrew Young and the American Indian, the executive 
committee of the not-so-nonaligned nations has been called 
into special session. Presiding is the delegate from the Cen- 
tral African Progressive People's Charnel House. 


I am honored to have been chosen to preside over this extraor- 
dinary plenary of the underdeveloped. May I ask the 
gentleman in the third row kindly to put on his trousers. 

I am proud to report that in my country, all minorities are 
treated with perfect equality and without a hint of racism. 
Under the reign of our beloved colonel, who has now been in 
office for a full three days, no distinction is made among 
whites, Indians, blacks. Amnesty International confirms that 
all are being cared for indiscriminately. Burial in the fields is 
on a first come, first interred basis, and the reports that op- 
ponents of the regime are being eaten are exaggerated. Oh, 
maybe a taste here and there, but no banquets. When the 
rumormongers are apprehended, they will be executed after 
no torture to speak of and then tried. (Demonstration of ad- 

Thank you, brothers. The first fraternal delegate to speak will 
be the honorable representative of the Beautified Republic of 
Iran. Your Saintliness. 

Kurds and Way 


Thank you, oh Brother in the faith. The correction of the 

misguided is being carried out in my country despite the ac- 
tive intervention of Satan. Some would say to the devil with 
the infidels, but Islam is persevering. I do not speak here of 
Christians or Jews; they are unspeakable. Allah has placed 
upon us the glorious burden of confronting the evil in our 
fellow Moslems of a slightly different persuasion, and we 
shall not flinch. The fire shall have them, after the machine 
gun gets done with them. 

May the short skirt become a shroud for perverts. 


And that's no veiled threat. 


May the tongues of intellectuals be uprooted, their eyes 

plucked out, their hands cut off unto the elbow, and Allah's 

mercy and abundant oil be upon you all. (A brief prayer.) 


Amen, Imam, and will somebody please mop up after his 
Saintliness. I have here a telegram of earnest affection for 
your Beatitude from the Ramsey Clark Any-Enemy-of-the- 
Shah-ls-a-Friend-of-Mine Committee. The committee 
apologizes for the bad press in America — but we all know the 
sort of people who run that. 

Speaking for my own country, we can guarantee a mass con- 
version in accord with the guidelines of any Ayatollah in ex- 
change for a break on the price of crude. 

Now, we shall hear from the esteemed delegate from the 
People's Utopia of Vietnam. 


Thank you, Your Estimable. We in our country have watched 
with wide eyes your brave colonel's pioneering accomplish- 
ments in the elimination of the minority problem. 

Even as we rebuilt the land devastated by Western im- 
perialists, we offer an example to the world of the humane im- 
pulses of Third World Socialism. Tempering justice with 

Walter Goodman 


recreation, we have dispatched our exploitative minority on 
cruises around the Pacific at bargain rates. There they sail 
even now, from one pleasant shore to another. The children 
especially must be having a wonderful time. Those who have 
voluntarily chosen to remain in our land are enjoying adult 
education courses at state expense. I have with me many af- 
fadavits (sic) of gratitude. A few, it is true, who are anti-people- 
hood, crooked and probably cracked, have spread poisonous 
slanders to the rodents of the press. To them we say, give 
thanks you are not in Cambodia. 


All hail and thank you, oh, big-of-heart Little Brother. I have 
here a cable of solidarity to you from the William Kunstler 
Vietnam-Can-Do-No-Wrong Committee. And, I must add, a 
cable of fraternal reprimand from the Noam Chomsky Stop- 
Picking-On-Cambodia Committee. 

Now, it is my honor to call upon the exalted leader of the 
Cuban masses. 


(Eight hours later.) To conclude, no one need fear anything in 
our Motherland, so long as he keeps his mouth shut, and 
fights where he is sent to fight, totes that barge and lifts that 
bale. Inspired by the ideals and advanced weaponry of our 
Soviet comrades, whose record of care and devotion toward 
ethnic and religious minorities is unexampled, we shall bring 
to our relations in Africa a new dawn of hard work and shut 
mouths. Everybody will now cheer. (Cheers). 


Hurrah and a cable of praise to you from the Fair Play for 

Cuba and Jane Fonda Committee. 

Before calling upon our next speaker, the star attraction of 
this unsurpassed gathering, permit me to read the following 
communication: "Evidence in hand that the CIA, the FBI, the 
Mafia, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce behind the 
mysterious disappearance of Idi Amin. Send a million dollars 
post haste so that we may pursue hot leads." Signed: The 
Mark Lane All-the-World-ls-a-Conspiracy Committee. 

I now call on the Gracious Representative of the Palestinian 
Liberation Organization. 

Rules of War 


Brothers, I come to speak not of politics but of morality. All 
humanity condemns those who persist in shelling the inno- 
cent inhabitants of Southern Lebanon. The international com- 
munity, gathered here in full purity, calls upon the Israeli 

colonialists to play fair. Let them be as men and engage in 
warfare in a manly manner. Let them send their fighters into 
our territory to occupy schoolhouses and machine gun buses 
instead of launching assaults from afar. That's the sort of war- 
fare the United Nations respects (sic). 

Brothers, there is no honor in these people, and we would 
condemn them except that we do not recognize them. What 
we ask of those alleged Israelis, through third parties like our 
closet friends in the United States, is that they show a little 
trust. Let them hold out their hands. . . 


. . .and we will cut them off at the elbow. 


Will His Gracehood kindly restrain his understandable pas- 
sions until the delegate has completed holding out the branch 
of peace. And will somebody please wipe the froth from the 
benign beard? 


(Gun up.) I stand before you as the sole legitimate spokesman 
for the Arabs of Palestine, and woe be to any Palestinian who 
says otherwise. 

Pluck out their tongues! 
Down, Respected Reverence. 

And when the glorious day dawns upon our glorious Pales- 
tinian State, be assured that the examples set by our glorious 
brethren in progressive paradises from Havana to Hanoi and 
in Islamic heavens on earth from Libya to Iran will be followed 
most worshipfully. 


All in favor say Aye. 




From our mouths to Allah's ears. 


Ears! Rip off their ears . . . chop off their toes 

their guts . . . 

(The meeting ends in prayer.) 

snatch out 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Matthew 
Clarke, Treasurer; Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex 
Officio. Stew Bird; Jeff Byrd (AIVF only); Maxi Cohen; Monica Freeman, 
Vice-President; Manny Kirchheimer; Kathy Kline, Chairperson; Kitty 
Morgan; Jane Morrison, President; Elliot Noyes, Secretary; Ted 

STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tonkonow, Assistant Director, Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director; Media Works: Lillian Jimenez, 
Project Director; Bob Wiegand, Executive Producer; Karen Brinkman, 
Project Coordinator; Frances Piatt, Project Coordinator. 

mmm mimw,M\ 


Dear Program Manager: 

I don't know about you, but I am very disappointed in the way SPC 7 has developed. Specifically, what concerns me is 
PBS management of the bidding process. Indeed, the problem — for me — is the very fact of PBS control over that 
process, a control which I regard as artibrary and excessive. 

On February 13, the day after the Second Preference Round, we all received a DACS message from PBS containing, we 
were told, the "final SPC 7 catalog." I was shocked to note that PBS had unilaterally eliminated a large number of the 
new proposals which we had screened in San Francisco, as a result of their not having achieved '" . . .40% purchase 
power or higher" in the Second Preference Round. 

However, the Second Preference Round was not a purchase commitment round, as PBS itself reminded us. Therefore, to 
eliminate a proposal on the basis of a purchase power figure, of whatever magnitude, was both irrelevant and, frankly, a 
deception. Indeed, I was shocked that proposals had been dropped for any reason at all. 

I am very disturbed by what has happened here. Two or three people at PBS have decided, quite without consultation, 
what we, the member stations, will bid on and what we will not. I, for one, deeply resent being told that I will not be 
permitted to bid on what I saw and discussed at the Program Fair and for weeks afterward. 

If we are not to be permitted to bid on the entries that we screened in San Francisco, what was the point of getting us all 
there? Why spend five or six days together at great expense to our stations if PBS in the end is simply going to instruct 
us about which shows we can bid on? 

My disgruntlement is further intensified by the fact that PBS made up the rules of the bidding procedure as we went 
along. At no point during or after the Program Fair was I informed of a general procedure for the voting and bidding or 
asked for an opinion. I certainly had no idea that so many proposals would be eliminated merely as a result of our 
expressing "preferences" in the Second Preference Round. 

Finally, you may have noticed that most of the proposals submitted by independent producers for the major market 
were dropped before the first bidding round. PBS has made a commitment to see that independent producers get more 
access to the system; I wonder if network action is arbitrarily eliminating most of the major market independent 
proposals before the first bidding round is an adequate response to the legitimate demands of these producers? 

In summary, I object in principle to PBS Programming manipulating the SPC 7 process which began so auspiciously in 
San Francisco. I object to PBS deciding what programs we would bid on and which ones we would not. As a Program 
Manager of a supposedly independent PTV station, I object to not being permitted even one bid on shows our viewers 
have expressed preferences for: preferences we have taken some pains to ascertain. 

I would object even if all the shows I wanted to bid on had been included in PBS' "final catalog" and others eliminated 
in their stead. Because the real question which these events raise is this: do we at the local level control the program 
selection process on behalf of our service areas or does the network office? We Program Managers and our stations 
certainly are not controlling the SPC bidding process. I, for one, am not happy with that situation. Are you? I would 
appreciate hearing from you. 


Jim Lewis 

Director of Programming 

KPTS, Wichita, Kansas 



priorities & procedures 

On March 10, 1980, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's 
Board of Trustees delegated its power to make individual pro- 
gramming budget decisions to Lewis Freedman, the new CPB 
Program Fund Director. Of the 15 members of the Board, the 
vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the passage of Mr. Freedman's pro- 
posals. Some members of the Board were dismayed over the 
lack of specifics. Board member Howard White, for example, 
remarked on his vote, "I don't know what this paper is." The 


paper is broad enough to leave much of the final decision- 
making power in the hands of the Program Fund Director. In 
addition, CPB Board oversight procedures for the Program 
Fund are somewhat unclear. 

The following paper outlines the general procedures by which 
"Independent Requests for Proposals" will be obtained and 
dealt with. Mr. Freedman visited the AIVF on March 28th to 
discuss the issues raised by his paper. 


TO: CPB Board of Directors 

FROM: Lewis Freedman 

DATE: March 10, 1980 

SUBJECT: Program Fund Priorites and Procedures 

The attached paper states my thoughts concerning the 
priorities and procedures for the administration of the Pro- 
gram Fund in FY 81. 


The Program Fund will stimulate innovative and exciting pro- 
grams with excellence and diversity as its standards. 

Excellence will be judged through the mechanism of advisory 
panels consisting of experts, chosen from all parts of the 
American community and all fields of activity. 

Diversity will be sought through making the Program Fund 
available to all sources of creativity, both inside and outside 
the public broadcasting community. 

The Program Fund will try to address an ever-widening spec- 
trum of the potential audience, without lowering its artistic 
and intellectual standards. 

It will seek to do this by searching out subjects in all diverse 
parts of the country, by listening for new voices that speak for 
those segments of the community that are otherwise unheard. 

It will also seek to do this by exploring new forms for televi- 
sion, forms that will raise the spirit, feed the imagination, and 
touch the heart, entertain as well as nourish. 

In doing so, it will speak for, and listen to, minority groups and 
women, the old and the young, the educated and those who 
are less so. 

The Program Fund will open up new avenues for children's 
programming, requesting original and entertaining proposals 
to serve as vehicles to stimulate as well as teach. 

The Program Fund will strengthen the national schedule by 
funding programs that are either too expensive, too pro- 
vocative, or too special to be created by the other methods of 
program selection. 

The Fund will also strengthen regional groups and local 
licensees since they provide a network of broadcasters where 
new ideas, new talent, and new personnel can be tried out. 

The Fund will take the responsibility for creating local pro- 
grams that might serve as models for other local broad- 
casters, even where the material might be too specialized for 
national broadcast. 

The Program Fund will support experiments that aim at 
enhancing public broadcasting by working with other broad- 
casting entities such as National Public Radio, the Indepen- 
dent Producer Laboratories, and the Daily Exchange Feed, as 
well as the Public Broadcasting System. 

The Program Fund will assist in developing programs even 
when the cost is too great to be born by the Fund alone, by in- 
vesting in the early stages in order to encourage co-funders, 
private and public. 

Finally, in choosing proposals with the advice of panels, the 
Program Fund will stress those subjects of the greatest con- 
cern to the viewer and to the community. Through film, 
through video tape, and through live broadcast, the Fund will 
create programs that deal with the national as well as the in- 
dividual dilemmas of our time. Through government and art, 
through science and history, either dramatized or analyzed, 
the Program Fund should be a tool with which the American 
citizen can contemplate, understand, and enjoy our time. 

By reflecting the visible and making visible what is unseen, it 
can help to address the spiritual, ethical, and moral crises that 
confront the nation; if it succeeds, it will enhance the life of 
the viewer, not killing time, but enriching it. 


The following outline will describe how the Program Funds in- 
tends to request, handle, negotiate, and monitor projects: 


The Program Fund will develop a detailed request for pro- 
posals to provide producers with all the information they need 
to compete for funds. In addition, a summary will be prepared 
which will be used primarily as a means of advising producers 
how to obtain this detailed request for proposals. The follow- 
ing is a list of items which will be included in the detailed 

1. a description of the CPB Program Fund and its purpose 

2. the timetable for the receipt of proposals, the review and 

CPB mmmmmmvmnm 


selection process, and the production and distribution 

3. a description of what the programs are expected to be (e.g. 
a series on American history, a documentary on examining 
American economy, etc.) 

4. a description of the type of proposal request (e.g. treat- 
ment, script, pilot, series) 

5. a list of required material and suggested format (e.g. one 
page fact sheet, two page summary of proposal, budget, ex- 
ample of previous work, etc) 

6. a description of the rights, warranties, and indemnifica- 
tions that CPB will require (e.g. four plays in three years, etc.) 

7. a description of the usual CPB funding arrangement 

8. descriptions of the number and type of reports the Program 
Fund will require (e.g. two progress reports and a final 

9. a description of the review and evaluation process and the 
criteria to be used 

The summary will describe only the type of programs the 
Fund is looking for, the deadline dates, and notification that 
more detailed information is available. 


The summary will be distributed in the following ways: 

1. CPB, PBS, and NAEB's newsletters 

2. notification to various newspaper, magazines, and trade 
press, etc. 

3. mailing lists of independent producers — to be reviewed 
and updated at CPB 

4. notification of various organizations and trade groups (e.g. 
independent film and video groups, writers association, etc.) 

The summary will tell people who are interested to write CPB 
for more detailed information. 


The following procedures will be used to handle proposals: 

1. All proposals will be logged in and assigned a number. 

2. Each proposal will be examined for completeness. 

3. Each proposal will receive an acknowledgement; and, at 
this time if anything is missing, the producer(s) will be 
notified and given time to provide the missing material. 

4. The panels will be selected about the time the solicitation 
is first made; each panelist will be sent a packet of material at 
least two weeks prior to the meeting. 

5. The panel will meet to review the proposals and make 
recommendations to the Fund Director. To the extent possi- 
ble, notes will be taken and comments attributed to specific 
proposals, for the purpose of providing the producer(s) with 

6. After the panel has made its recommendation and the Fund 
Director makes his decision, the respondents will be notified 
of the outcome. 


The contract officer of the Program Fund will negotiate with 
the producer(s) within guidelines established by the Corpora- 
tion. The commitment of funds and the negotiation of the con- 
tract will be under the supervision of the Fund Director. Ex- 
ecution of the contract will rest with the president of CPB. It 
will be the responsibility of the Program Fund to do the 

1. review and approve the budget 

2. negotiate the contract within the perimeters laid down by 
the Corporation (in the event that the terms of the contract ex- 

ceed these perimeters, permission from the president will be 
required before the negotiations can be completed). 

It will be the responsibility of the administrative arm of the 
Corporation to do the following: 

1. assure that the monies committed by the Program Fund 
are within the approved Fund budget 

2. that the contracts do not exceed the guidelines set by the 

3. that payments are made in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the contract. 

4. provide auditing services when requested 

5. provide contract drafting services 


It will be the responsibility of the Associate Directors for 
Public Affairs and Cultural Programming to monitor those 
projects which fall within their area. This will include review- 
ing progress reports, on-site visits, and the screening of com- 
pleted productions. They will be responsible to see that the 
productions are completed on time within budget, and as 
described in the proposal. 


The Program Fund will work through a system of expert 
panels as mandated by Congress. The following structure is 
suggested. While taking advantage of the panels' recommen- 
dations, it preserves the flexibility that programming 

1. The Agenda Panel. This panel consists of a group of men 
and women, each expert in a different field, who would advise 
the Fund about trends and developments in the year to come. 
It would meet at most twice a year. It would not examine pro- 
posals, but would simply serve as a lighthouse to guide the 
Fund in decision making. 

2. The Task Force Panels. These panels would be chosen 
from men and women in particular areas of community life: 
government, art, science, etc. There would be six panelists on 
each: four from outside broadcasting, one broadcaster, and 
one independent producer. The panels would read proposals 
and make recommendations. The panels would meet approx- 
imately three times a year. 

It should be noted here that the panels would work on dif- 
ferent levels depending on the areas of programming involved. 
An anthology of independent productions would require the 
judgment of the panel on each proposal within that anthology. 
On the other hand, the area of current affairs might require 
their recommendations to determine which of several series 
ideas might be funded; but the individual programs would be 
determined by the executive producer. 

3. Available Experts. Since good program ideas and pro- 
posals often arise spontaneously, and often need fast action, 
the Program Fund will maintain a list of experts in all fields 
who are available to give their recommendations on short 
notice. If a proposal is received that the staff feels warrants 
fast action, it will be sent immediately to three or four experts 
for their opinion by telephone. If their recommendations con- 
cur with the staff's, the project would be explored in more 
detail so that when the Task Panel meets, a final decision and 
implementation can be realized quickly. 

It should go without saying that every panel will include both 
men and women, and that the minorities will be represented. 

The independent producer and the broadcaster on each panel 
would not, of course, be eligible for a grant from that panel 
while he or she is serving on it. j 



One final consideration must be borne in mind. The Program 
Fund must be open to proposals that defy prior description. It 
must encourage them, and in fact, seek them out. As is well 
known, committees have a tendency to shy away from the ex- 
ceptional. While taking full advantage of the expertise of the 
panel system, the final decision-making process must always 
allow for the most creative, original, unpredictable, and seem- 
ingly nutty idea. 

Independent Producers 

For the purpose of the Program Fund, an independent pro- 
ducer is any producer, working for himself or herself, who is in 
complete control of the content and the budget of the produc- 

In making grants, the Program Fund will observe the letter of 
the Congressional mandate to ensure that a substantial por- 
tion of the money goes directly to the independent producers 
who submit proposals of quality that fall within the guidelines 
and priorities set up by the Board of Directors. 

Beyond administering the Fund, there are four areas of con- 
cern: Information, Outside Funding, Promotion, and 
Marketing. Since there is no single organization representing 
independent producers comparable to PBS for the stations, 
CPB will have to find ways to relate to independents. They 
would include: 

1. Information. In addition to the generally accepted chan- 
nels of information such as Variety, Broadcasting, etc., the 
Program Fund could create a Newsletter that would be 
available free to all independents who asked to have their 
names on the mailing list. This Newsletter would be issued 
regularly and would contain any information relevant to the 
Fund: its priorities, its schedule, its decisions. (As such it 
would be useful to similar agencies such as the Endowments). 
Furthermore, it would be a forum for ideas, and even for 
criticism and rebuttal. It would be funded by CPB and, 
hopefully, by other interested parties, such as the Rockefeller 

2. Outside Funding. Frequently there will be good proposals 
that the Program Fund cannot underwrite entirely. In such 
cases, it would be extremely helpful if there were an office 
that could advise the independent producer where additional 
funding might be found. This would go far toward alleviating 
the frequent situation where seed money is available from 
CPB, but through lack of experience the independent pro- 
ducer cannot find the remainder and good ideas languish. 

3. Promotion. An effort should be made to improve the pro- 
motion of independent productions, particularly the produc- 
tion that does not fall within a series. Quite naturally, the 
major portion of advertising and promotion money ad- 
ministered through PBS is allotted to major series and usually 
to those produced by stations. Since the Program Fund will 
concern itself to a considerable degree with the programs that 
it supports, this situation will be improved to some degree. It 
would be useful, however, to arrange some method of advis- 
ing, and even assisting, an independent producer in regard to 
promotion. Acknowledging that advertising money is too hard 
pressed already, the skill and experience that can be used to 
promote a particular program would not only help the pro- 
ducer, it would go far to underline the role that CPB is playing 
in the encouragement of the diverse creative forces available. 

4. Marketing. Both from the point of view of the indepen- 
dent producer and of the Program Fund, finding a market for 
Program Fund underwritten productions, here and abroad, is 
important. Almost without exception, the small independent 
lacks the experience, the knowledge, and the contacts to 
make the sales. It would greatly enhance our relationship with 


the independents if CPB could create a mechanism to help 
search for and stimulate sales of productions that have been 
funded and broadcast on the public network. It is not only a 
first step toward the self-support that is so often encouraged 
for public broadcasting, it, too, is part of the effort that must 
be made to stimulate an awareness of CPB's role in the 
creative life of the country. 

These four separate areas are in fact part of a larger whole: 
following the spirit as well as the letter of the Congressional 
mandate, CPB would implement its role as leader of the broad- 
casting community, enlarging that community to include the 
independent spirit that is so typically American and so vitally 
necessary to the well-being of public broadcasting. 


Certain priorities must be set to guide the administration of 
the Program Fund, while bearing in mind that there is simply 
not enough money available, even if all previous commitments 
were broken, to do all the things that need to be done. Filling 
the gaps means choosing which gaps to fill. 

1. One gap is obvious: the shocking scarcity of children's pro- 
grams — in-school and particularly out-of-school and at every 
age level. There are, in addition, almost no family programs on 
the schedule. 

2. A second gap: minority programming has hardly begun, 
either targeted specifically at special groups or aimed at the 
community at large to increase its awareness and understand- 
ing through main-stream programs. 

3. Less obvious but just as real is the gap in the area of 
cultural programming which has had a tendency to focus on a 
rather high-brow level, taking little account of the popular arts 
and particularly ignoring the vast majority of potential viewers 
who are not prepared to jump from Saturday Night Fever to 
the Metropolitan Opera overnight. The alternative to Joan 
Sutherland is not Doris Day, and the capacity to learn is 
universal. In the push to provide the greatest performances, 
public broadcasting has closed its eyes to the opportunity to 
teach an ever-widening audience how to enjoy them. It may be 
time to assume that obligation. 

4. The area of programming called Science and Information is 
probably the only one that is substantially supported, clearly 
because it is usually uncontroversial. For the time being, 
public broadcasting has NOVA, the National Geographic 
Specials, and the forthcoming ODYSSEY. But there is no pro- 
gramming that addresses the individual's health, either 
physical or mental or spiritual, an alarming oversight. 

5. The area of public affairs is almost totally untouched in 
public broadcasting where, ironically, it has the highest poten- 
tial, particularly in this period of national and international 
crises. Except for the occasional special, public broadcasting 
rarely copes with the government, its policies or the lack of 
them, and its relationship to the rest of the world. Despite the 
good work done by the few shows already on the air, the reluc- 
tance of private corporation money to enter into a potentially 
controversial area has created an enormous gap in the 
schedule. As Bill Moyers has pointed out, one should be able 
to turn to public broadcasting with the certainty that one will 
find there a regular and total account of the course of events 
presented in depth. 

Children's Programming; Special Interest Programming; 
Cultural Affairs; Science and Information; and Public Affairs. 
Among these five areas, by filling these five gaps, through 
drama and synthesis, dramatization and analysis, the Program 
Fund's priorities can be set with the goal of modelling a 
coherent and complete schedule. 





These priorities should be arrived at with the understanding 
that they are not mutually exclusive. They should be set with 
the awareness that not all of them, or even any one of them, 
can be fully achieved with the limited sums at the Fund's 
disposal. They should be discussed with the knowledge that 
innovative and original ideas do not come on command and 
that a spectacularly good idea cannot be rejected because it 
doesn't fit the guidelines. 

Finally, there is the danger that the limited sums will be 

spread so thin that no impact will be felt in any area at all. 
Using the Program Fund itself, judiciously administered, and 
using the available additional government agency, foundation, 
and private corporate money that might be triggered by the 
Fund, the Corporation might reasonably expect to establish 
within two years a strong salient in each of the above areas. 
The foothills should be built up; the range should be extend- 
ed; but, if the Program Fund can discover one or two mountain 
peaks, the experiment will have succeeded. D 



by St. Claire Bourne 

As an independent producer/director "specializing" in subject 
matters of special interest to Black Americans for over a 
decade, I'd like to present some comments on the current 
state of "minority" programming and make specific sugges- 
tions for the future. We are in a period of transition in which 
both independents and "minorities" are seeking greater par- 
ticipation within the CPB/PBS structure and it is within this 
context that I address these remarks. 

"Minority" programming in the electronic mass media has had 
a relatively brief history. It was public television that took the 
first step in the 1960's with BLACK JOURNAL, the first na- 
tional Black news program on American television. As an 
original member of that program's staff, our purpose, as we 
saw it, was clear: to provide "minorities" with an opportunity 
to address each other on issues that they considered impor- 
tant. As a counterpoint to BLACK JOURNAL came SOUL!, an 
entertainment program which also provided a forum for per- 
formers who had been virtually ignored by mainstream televi- 
sion. Then came an explosion of local public affairs programs 
aimed at the "minority" audience. 

Both of these pioneering programs performed a necessary 
function quite effectively but were in origin and in fact a reac- 
tion to the wake of urban disorders during that time. They 
were created as a response to an admitted deficiency: to ad- 
dress an audience which had never been adequately address- 
ed directly before. The programs and their imitators could be 
called "the first generation of minority programming". 

If there was a flaw in this first effort, it was a narrowness of 
vision that could not be avoided at the time. By addressing 
Blacks about Blacks only, for example, a large part of the 
viewing audience was excluded but more important, the role 
of "minorities" within the total framework of America was not 

The second generation of "minority" programming attempted 
to correct some of these unavoidable limitations. While 
comedy and/or musical variety programs oriented to certain 
ethnic groups began to surface in mainstream television, 
public television presented INTERFACE which showed the in- 
teraction of various cultures in America through issues in 
everyday life. INTERFACE concentrated on socio-political 
conflict and congress but also limited itself to a certain 
aspect of America — the cultural (in the anthropological 
sense) interaction. Another program, BLACK PERSPECTIVE 

ON THE NEWS, took the "hard news" approach and opened 
its list of guests to all races with the understanding that all 
people in this country can be affected by a variety of 
newsmakers of all skin colors. However, the news format 
prevented the viewer from receiving a multi-dimensional 
understanding of the issues. 

The next step in this process, I propose, is a view and interpre- 
tation of American issues based in the "minority" experience 
but treating issues, trends and phenomenon not necessarily 
directly connected to "minority" life. It is this approach that 
has yet to be seen in programming content. A view from this 
proposed perspective would bring an unjaded eye to not only 
institutions of special interest to "minorities" but also to 
those institutions that affect everyone as well, for it can be 
truthfully said that all things in America affect all people in 
America in some way. 

St. Claire Bourne 







(The INDEPENDENT is pleased to make available to our readership the experience of independent film and video 
makers. The following evaluation of the selection process at the TV Lab, Independent Documentary Fund is the 
personal view of Mitchell Block. It is not intended to represent the view of the AIVF. Neither is the reply, written 
by Kathy Kline and David Loxton of the T.V. Lab.) 



Last month in this column we outlined some ways of 
making grant proposals look better and read easier, and 
we discussed some ways of listing credits and submit- 
ting sample works and proposals to increase the likeli- 
hood of funding. The focus was on the WNET's Broad- 
cast Laboratory, Independent Documentary Fund. 

Ben Shedd and I were co-applicants this year for a grant 
from this fund. This was my third attempt and I felt that 
I should follow my own advice. By expanding the proj- 
ect and bringing in Ben, I knew that WNET's final panel 
would, in theory, have to pay more attention to our proj- 
ect than in the past. With Ben, the packet should have 
received serious recognition from the pre-panel in at 
least two areas: "Sample work" and "Ability of appli- 
cant to carry out proposal". It did not, although our pro- 
posal packet included my Emmy award-winning film, 
NO LIES, and Ben's Oscar-winning film, THE FLIGHT 

This has happened three times to me, and I can assume 
it has happened with some frequency to hundreds of 
other filmmakers who have- applied. At $200 a grant 
proposal, which I think is a low estimate for one 
person's time for two days to research, write, and plan 
a grant application, WNET is wasting thousands of 
dollars of filmmakers time. Independent filmmakers are 
being given high expectations. This is clearly unfair and 
perhaps even irresponsible. Sample films and video 
works are not screened, ideas are inconsistently judged 
by pre-panelists, who are working without guidelines, 
and without coordination either with other pre-panel 
groups or the final panel. 

The issue in our mind is not whether or not we should 
have been funded. The issue is how the Fund funds. Is 
there a better, fairer way of doing this? 

The current trend calls for panels and pre-panels to be 
made up of selected representatives of various interest 
groups. I was asked to be a prepanelist from my region. 
In most cases, one pre-panelist is a public television 
employee and the other an independent film/video 

Judging content and judging ideas is very difficult 
without a set of guidelines. What is a good idea? What 
idea has national significance? What is national 
significance? Which ideas should we fund? Not fund? 
To whom should we give the money? One could 
assume these are representative questions that pre- 
panelists and panelists should ask when judging pro- 
posals. How does the Television Laboratory operate? 
Each of the 20 or so pre-panelist panels receives 40 or 

so packets containing 2 copies of each grant proposal 
and sample film and tape works. Fuzzy guidelines are of- 
fered. Pre-panelists are asked to rank the proposals on 
a lu-point scale, giving the "best" project the nignesi 
score. No one tells them what is considered a good 
idea, how to rank applicants' abilities as filmmakers by 
their sample work, how to tell if an applicant can carry 
out his/her idea. 

No objective criteria exists for filmmakers selections or 
for WNET. Films are not funded because of "content" 
or "the idea" or on the basis of "sample works" or 
"ability of the applicant to carry out the proposed activi- 
ty," the supposed guidelines of the program. Given the 
limits of the situation— the number of films and tapes 
submitted and the breadth of the existing "criteria" — 
the oberburdened pre-panelists cannot be responsible 
to each applicant. Instead, pre-panelists are left to 
judge on the basis of intuition and personal bias. 

Furthermore, pre-panelists are doing WNET's dirty- 
work. In the present system pre-panelists serve as an 
inconsistant and unaccountable filter to reduce the ap- 
plications to a manageable number. In so doing, they 
unwittingly act as a buffer between the vast numbers of 
needy-filmmakers and the Public Broadcasting System. 

As a pre-panelist I did not receive clear guidelines for 
any of the three areas our pre-panel was asked to 
evaluate. I did not screen work for any proposal I con- 
sidered weak or whose applicants had little demon- 
strated film experience. If the key criteria for judgement 
are "content" or "idea" and the one idea we most highly 
recommended was not funded by WNET (which was the 
case), and if it happens that they instead fund one of our 
second or third choices (which they did), then some- 
thing must be wrong. If they totally ignore our recom- 
mendations and fund one of the other 40 proposals we 
received, the entire fairness Of the pre-panel system is 
put on the line. 

Films are funded because the final panel wants to fund 
them, not necessarily because of what pre-panels say. 
Shedd and I compare favorably to a number of grantees 
in two areas: sample works and ability of applicants to 
carry out proposal. In a number of cases our credits or 
"bankability" is greater. There is no question that our 
sample works and ability rs less than a "10". Yet, our 
pre-screeners for reasons unknown to us, gave us a "5". 
They did not like our idea. Yet, our idea and most of the 
ideas we have reviewed are all pretty much the same. 
Some ideas might be more political on the surface, 
some might be more controversial, but when one 
evaluates all of the workable ideas our, like almost 

Institutional Review* 


HALF of the proposals my pre-panel reviewed, were no 
better or no worse than ANY of the ideas that already 
have been funded. 

It shouldn't be surprising that an inconsistant process 
without standards produces an irrational mixed bag of 
results. Consider these Independent Documentary 
Fund selections: 

1. A film on the C.I.A. and U.S. foreign policy. 

2. A portrait of three radicals who now hold elected 
offices in Detroit. 

3. A portrait of actors, actresses and musicians try- 
ing to make it in LA. 

4. A portrait of four mothers and their daughters. 

5. A portrait of three black jazz tap dancers. 

6. A portrait of the life saga of an American wheat 
farmer in Washington State. 

7. A film dealing with the reshaping of attitudes, 
values and myths during the 1930's in America. 

8. An investigation of possible insurance fraud in a 
small Florida town. 

9. A film examining how news events are selected 
and organized. 

A Short Outline for a Possible Solution: 

A system that requires hundreds of people to compete 
for limited funding should undergo constant review. 
The WNET program, by using pre-panels, clearly is not 
serving the needs of the independent film community. 
My purpose in offering the following suggested method 
is to begin a dialogue between WNET and the indepen- 
dent film community. No system is fool proof. No 
system will work for everyone. But the present system 
is clearly unfair. With Public Television gearing up to 
work with us under its mandated program for indepen- 
dent filmmakers, new methods must be devised to 
allocate funding. If 10 new programs like WNET's are 
set up, instead of 25 pre-panels evaluating 800 applica- 
tions for funding, 8,000 applications will be reviewed by 
hundreds of pre-panels. 

WNET and other major granting organizations within 
Public Television that have funds and are looking for 
proposals should stop asking independent filmmakers 
to work for free. Multiple pre-panels are a waste of time 
and are unfair. There is far too large a pool of indepen- 
dent filmmakers who are qualified to make films and far 
too little production money to hand out. The Federal 
government had a similar problem with the bid process 
for their audio-visual productions. Sometimes hundreds 
of bids would be prepared by filmmakers for one proj- 
ect. (This still happens in many states.) The govern- 
ment, after prodding from the Information Film Pro- 
ducers Association and other groups, solved the prob- 
lem with multiple bids in a neat way. A "Qualified Film 
Producers List" was set up. Only producers selected at 
random from the QFPL would be able to bid for films. 

Getting on the list requires the producer to submit a 
sample work that is evaluated by a panel in terms of 
subjective areas. (See "Getting on the List" by M. Block 
in THE INDEPENDENT, Summer 1979, for more infor- 
mation.) Producers' names, in groups of 5, are given to 
the agency that wants a film made. This is done for any 

project with a budget greater than $15,000. In addition 
to the 5, 10, 15 (etc.) selected producers, the agency 
may request 2 producers per 5 from the list of their 
choice. The Federal proposal indicates clearly how the 
selection process will work. Generally, price is just one 
of the factors. 

Public Television should use a similar system. It should 
set up its own Qualified Film Producers list. The pro- 
ducers on the Public Television list would, in theory, be 
qualified to make documentaries or other kinds of films 
for Public Television. The Federal list, last time I 
looked, had around 400 producers on it. New names are 
added every time they cycle through it. Once such a list 
exists, a WNET Grant for Independent Documentaries 
could work as follows: 

1. WNET would write 20 to 30 producers selected at 
random by the list office at Public Television in- 
viting them to submit proposals for funding con- 
sideration. (If a producer does not choose to sub- 
mit a proposal, WNET could contact an alternative 
name from the list.) 

2. Since proposals call for NEW films, producers 
would be paid a token fee of $500 to $2,000 for 
"creative treatments, budgets, schedules, etc.". 
(Fees would be paid under this system if the pro- 
ducer is asked to write "creative treatments" or 
do more than "budget".) 

3. WNET would not be permitted to invite selected 
producers to apply since this grant is open to all 
independent filmmakers now. (In the last cycles 
former Lab producers have received funding.) The 
20 to 30 producers would be screened by ONE 
panel. This panel would award the grants. A fixed 
number of applicants would be accepted. 

What could be fairer? Hundreds of filmmakers would 
not spend thousands of hours of time working on pro- 
posals that are never totally reviewed. Producers would 
be paid a small fee to help compensate them for their 
time and creative energy. WNET would get their 6 to 9 
films, and be able to turn down (or select from) 3 or 4 
other applicants per funded film. Remember the QFPL 
assumes that every producer on the list can make the 
film. It does not say one is "better". That choice is 
made by the station. 

WNET's current system is untenable. It favors the sub- 
jective judgements of faceless people using non- 
existent guidelines and inconsistent standards. It 
creates a situation where pre-panelists are accountable 
to no one. The outstanding films produced by this 
system can not be traced to the original decision- 
making process since as many projects that have been 
turned down for funding for various reasons when 
made have received similar critical approval and/or 
disapproval. These faceless pre-panelists permit WNET 
program executives to cop-out, lamely asking "What 
can I say..." to filmmakers who want to know why 
they were not funded. When HUNDREDS of EQUALLY 
good IDEAS by EQUALLY QUALIFIED filmmakers were 
in the hopper this is unsatisfactory. Independent film- 
makers should refuse to submit projects for free and 
stop participating in any competition that is run like a 
beauty pageant or lottery. @ 198Q MWB -,-, 

Institutional Review 

IV LAB replies 


It would be hard to dispute Mitchell Block's premise 
that grant-awarding processes tend to be tedious, time 
consuming and frustrating to the applicants. However, 
to describe the process we have established at the 
Independent Documentary Fund in the manner which 
he has done exhibits a misunderstanding of its basic 
mandate and philosophy and is a disservice to the 
many people in the independent community and within 
public television who have worked long and hard to try 
to make it efficient, judicious and open. 

In establishing the IDF, the Ford Foundation and the 
National Endowment for the Arts stipulated that "there 
should be no restriction on the type of format", "there 
should be no restriction on the proposed subject mat- 
ter of works considered for funding other than their 
suitability for broadcast" and that there need be "a 
geographically diverse panel including individuals who 
are professionals in documentary production as well as 
those who are responsible to and/or representative of 
the needs of minorities and women (who) should advise 
the project". 

Since Mitchell served as a screener, selected because 
he is an independent filmmaker and distributor, he 
should be aware of the responsibilities he agreed to 
assume. All screeners were advised that their difficult 
task was to narrow the number of applications (approx- 
imately 650-700 were received for the deadline) to a 
more manageable number for the Advisory Panel. They 
accepted the fact that they were preliminary reviewers 
and that it was the Advisory Panel which would in fact 
make final decisions. Not only were there long tele- 
phone conversations about the process but I followed 
this up with a lengthy letter explaining in detail exactly 
what their responsibilities would be. We included 
copies of the IDF guidelines so that they could 
familiarize themselves with the information provided to 
applicants. Screeners were paid $200 and given approx- 
imately one month to review their 35-40 applications. 
They were told to read the proposals carefully and to 
screen the accompanying work. They filled out forms 
asking for their evaluation on three levels: quality of the 
sample work, interest in the proposed idea as a national 
public television documentary, ability of the applicant 
to carry out the proposed project (based on the sample, 
the budget, the production schedule and resume of 
past work). They were advised that these comments 
might be requested by the applicants as a way of pro- 
viding feedback on their submission. 

By selecting screeners (more than 60 have participated 
in the three years) experienced in viewing and making 
documentaries, we hoped to have their best judgments 
in passing on projects of merit to the Advisory Panel. 
They were told of the unique nature of the IDF and the 
fact that this was the only place for an independent to 
receive substantial funding for a documentary for 


public television. We suggested that they especially 
focus on those projects which seemed to reflect the 
more provocative and personal approach of the in- 
dependent. This interest was also expressed in the 
guidelines given to applicants. 

The concept behind pairing an independent with a 
public television staff person was simply that these are 
the two sides of the equation. We are the INDEPEN- 
SION. We also hoped that there might be some long 
term benefits to both independents and to public televi- 
sion from relationships which got their beginning from 
the mutual screening process. It was interesting to 
find, in speaking to most of the screeners after they 
had made their decisions, that while the pair tended in 
fact to reflect the difference of approach expected, they 
had had no difficulty arriving at agreement on which 
projects to pass. 

The role of the Advisory Panel (made up of distinguish- 
ed film and video makers such as Fred Wiseman, Bob 
Young, Michael Roemer, Claudia Weill, Jon Alpert, 
television producers such as Tony Batten, and program- 
mers and media coordinators such as Sally Dixon, Cliff 
Frazier and Luis Torres) was to spend several days 
carefully reviewing the projects passed on to them by 
the various screeners. Applications had gone to 
screeners in all parts of the U.S. That Mitchell's pro- 
posal was turned down three times means that six dif- 
ferent screeners did not think that it should be given 
further consideration. 

Panelists were always given the opportunity of referring 
to the alphabetical listing of all applicants and retriev- 
ing those projects which for whatever reason did not 
make it through the preliminary process and bring them 
back into consideration for their review. 

A complex system is required to fairly and quickly 
review more than 650 applications and sample work. 
There is tremendous diversity in the experience of the 
applicants — ranging from Academy Award winners to 
those working on their second super-8 film. We needed 
to figure out a way that everyone could be given the 
same conscientious evaluation. 

While appreciating the recommendations offered by 
thoughtful people as to how to improve the process, I 
do not honestly see how Mitchell's proposed system 
would meet the needs of independents and public 
television. Who is to define "qualified" for his 
"Qualified Producers List"? Mitchell's recommenda- 
tions are full of inconsistencies. On the one hand he ac- 
cuses the current procedure for being like a lottery (an 
unfair statement, I think, since we have struggled to 
remove randomness and chance from the process) and 
then he goes ahead to recommend that under his pro- 
posed system "only producers selected at random from 
the Qualified Producers List would be able to bid for 

institutions! RG\f I GVIf mmmmummmmmwnmmmimmmMmmmimmmHmmmmmmmmmmmmmimnmimmi 

Finally, although no screening process can be perfect 
and certainly the hundreds who did not receive funding 
feel a sense of frustration, what is important to con- 
sider is whether the procedure — given the mandate by 
the funders to be open to all — is expeditious and 
responsible. No one forces anyone to apply. An in- 
dividual who chooses to be independent accepts cer- 
tain uncertainties. That is part of being independent. 
Some prefer the safe umbrella of an organization but 
relinquish some of their independence. No one can 
predetermine which applications reach the final review 
stage. The Panel sees all applications passed on by the 
various screeners. 

While no process is perfect and should be under con- 
tinual review and refinement, we think we have got a 
pretty good one with the IDF. The IDF is set up to serve 
two needs: those of the independent film and video 
community and those of public television, under the 
guidelines established by the funding sources mention- 
ed previously. The feedback we have been receiving to 
date, particularly from the independent community has 

been strongly supportive of the current process. After 
all, many of you reading this were largely instrumental 
in helping us develop it. 

The documentaries funded by the IDF will be broadcast 
as part of the NON FICTION TELEVISION series begin- 
ning Friday April 4 at 9:00 p.m. and continuing for 13 
consecutive Fridays at that time. Hopefully, it will 
become apparent that the documentaries produced 
under this grant, not only have the wonderful diversity 
mentioned by Mitchell, but also have a commonality of 
spirit, reflecting the true independence and vision of 
their creators. 

NOTE: There are many factual inaccuracies and unsup- 
ported inferences in Mitchell's article. I am sorry that 
he did not bring these up in a long telephone conversa- 
tion I had before this article went to print. They could 
have easily been corrected. However, the purpose of my 
response was not to correct point by point his misinfor- 
mation but to provide you with a description of our 
mandate and what we are trying to accomplish with the 
Independent Documentary Fund. 

NEW RELATIONS, a film by Ben Achlenberg 




new winners for this year's Short Film Showcase were recent- 
ly selected by screening panels from a national field of almost 
200 entries. Filmmakers, whose films will be circulated to 
commercial theatres, are Aviva Slesin of New York for A BIRD 
FOR ALL SEASONS, Rufus Seder of Boston for CITY 
SLICKERS, Carson Davidson of New York for 100 WATTS 120 
VOLTS, Eliot Noyes, Jr. of New York for SANDMAN, Malcolm 
Spaull of Rochester for THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER, 
and Michael Anderson of San Francisco for ZOMBIES IN A 

Each filmmaker receives a $2,500 honorarium from the Arts 
Endowment and supervises the blowup of his or her film. 

Serving on the screening panels were filmmakers Mirra Bank, 
Jerry Leiberman, Dick Rogers, Ted Timreck and Jan Saunders 
along with director Michael Schultz, critic Molly Haskell and 
exhibitors Scott Jablonow, Allen Pinsker and Henry G. Plitt. 

The next Showcase annual competition will offer an increased 
honorarium of $3,000. An entry form with particulars appears 
in this issue of THE INDEPENDENT. Additional forms are 
available at the AIVF office. All AIVF members and friends are 
urged to apply. 

NEW DISTRIBUTION PROJECT ... Independent Cinema 
Artists and Producers (ICAP) has been awarded a grant of 
$11,000 from the New York State Council on the Arts to pro- 
mote and develop distribution of independent film and video 
to public television stations in New York State. The project is 
a new step for ICAP, a non-profit organization that has been a 
leader in placing independent work in the cable television 
market since 1975. ICAP's goal is to create a comprehensive 
plan for distribution of independent film and video, integrating 
cable television, public television, and the home video market, 
and keeping abreast of the growing use of satellite transmis- 
sion, as well as other delivery systems. 

Film and video producers who are interested in having their 
work represented to public television should contact Kitty 
Morgan, Project Director, at (212) 473-0560 or write to ICAP, 
625 Broadway, 9th floor, New York NY 10012. 

ment has initiated operation of the Qualified Video Producers 
List (QVPL), similar to the one for film producers (QFPL) 
started last year. The purpose is to limit the number of com- 
panies bidding on any one project or film, ensure government 
productions at fair competitive prices and to provide a central 
point within the government where producers can obtain in- 
formation on contracting procedures and opportunities. Con- 
tact: Director of Audio-Visual Activity, 1117 North 19th Street, 
Room 601, Arlington, VA, 22209. 

Video Group has launched a new market test of creative home 
video programming with the Chicago Editing Center. The 
company and the collective will select a series of in- 
dependently produced videotapes for a 4-month test project 
— with programs spanning non-fiction to avant-garde video 
art. A sampling of these tapes will be given to VCR owners; 
then through questionnaires and personal interviews, the 
study will attempt to determine what kinds of programming 
are marketable ... an enterprising venture. 

CABLE AID . . . The Cable TV Information Center has com- 
pleted its spin-off from the Urban Institute in Washington, 
D.C., and is now an independent, self-sustaining non-profit 
organization supported by memberships and contracts with 
local governments. CTIC advises communities during cable 
franchise proceedings and has helped localities develop 

regulatory frameworks for cable TV. For more information, 
write: CTIC, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037. 
Their telephone number is (202) 872-8888. 

FATHERLY FEELINGS . . . Ben Achtenberg, a Massachusetts 
member of AIVF, has completed NEW RELATIONS: A FILM 
ABOUT FATHERS AND SONS, an autobiographical documen- 
tary concerned with changing sex roles, childcare, work and 
family, and masculinity. He intends to distribute the film 
himself, and judging from his production still (see photo), he 
ought to have huge success with a subject close to all of our 

. . . The Coalition is continuing to meet every two weeks. 
Several subcommittees have been developed: Research into 
License Challenge Committee, Outreach Committee and 
Screening Committee. Legislative contacts are being followed 
up and an indepth analysis of WNET's detailed budget is cur- 
rently underway. For more information, contact Lillian 
Jimenez, (212) 677-9572. 

LATINOS AND WNET ... On March 3rd, Latinos In Com- 
munication, an organization of Latino media professionals, 
held its monthly meeting at WNET/Channel 13 to hold a forum 
with John Jay Iselin, president of 13. Luis Alvarez, member of 
the Board of Trustees of WNET & CTW, and Jose Rivera, 
member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, were invited to sit on a panel with Iselin 
and present their positions on the status of Latinos in Public 
Broadcasting. Although Iselin had been presented with a list 
of questions in advance of the forum, he was unable to 
answer the very basic questions asked of him. He responded 
to questions of Latino employment with "I don't have that in- 
formation"; and to questions on the percentage of CSG's 
(Community Service Grants) going to Latino programming, he 
was also unable to answer satisfactorily. At one point during 
the presentation, Iselin argued with Iris Morales, moderator 
for the panel, on whether written material prepared by NET 
should be given out to the audience present. He was adamant- 
ly opposed, although he had brought the information packets 
down himself. The information spelled out the fact that of 86 
broadcasts, termed public affairs, only 6 were Latino oriented. 

Latinos In Communication agreed to further discuss WNET's 
relationship with Latinos and respond to Iselin in writing. 

FREE VOICES ... A newly finished film by Steven Fischler 
and Joel Sucher called FREE VOICE OF LABOR: THE JEWISH 
ANARCHISTS played the Film Forum for two weekends this 
month. The documentary chronicles both the history of the 
Freie Arbeiter Stimme, the longest publishing Yiddish- 
American anarchist newspaper, and that of Jewish-American 
anarchists, dedicated to "ultimate human justice". (These im- 
migrants organized demonstrations, sponsored lectures and 
created alternative schools in the turbulent period between 

WHO'S ON FIRST? WHAT'S ON PUBLIC TV? . . . The Indepen- 
dent Documentary Fund (IDF) has announced the projects it 
funded this year. Among the six grantees were the following: 
Ross McElwee, Michael Negroponte and Alexandra Anthony 
for THE DISAPPEARED ONES; Roberto Holguin for CRYSTAL: 
THE BROWN OUT; Martha Sandlin for A LADY NAMED 
BAYBIE; Robert Van Lierop for THE CLASS OF '54; and Ira 
Wohl for A WOMAN'S DECISION. The advisory panel selected 
these projects from 652 applicants this year. 

San Francisco AIVF member Steve Lighthill just completed 
TAKING BACK DETROIT. Made for WNET/13's Independent 
Documentary Fund, it will air Friday, June 13 on PBS's "Non- 

The Column 

Fiction Television" series. Also showing will be: 

May 9, 16, 23: ON COMPANY BUSINESS, a three- 

part series about the CIA, directed 
Allan Francovichi and Howard Drach 


JUSTICE, by Robert Thurber 

June 6: SERVICE ENTRANCE, by Dena Schutzer and 
MAN OF WHEAT, by Steve Martz 

Lillian Jimenez is now developing presentations and seminars 
at AIVF. She's interested in getting input from the video and 
film community about which issues it is most concerned with. 
Anyone interested in forming committees to help organize 
these events should call Lillian at (212) 677-9572. 

THEORY AND SLAPSTICKS ... On Wednesday, May 14th, 
Mitchell Kriegman will be speaking at AIVF on "The Problem 
with Subverting Capitalism through Masochism". Mitchell, 
who will also be showing his videotapes, is best known for his 
collaborations with comedian Marshall Klugman. The screen- 
ing will take place at 8:00 p.m., at 625 Broadway, 9th floor. 

BEHIND BARS . . . PRESUMED INNOCENT, the first compre- 
hensive video record of the Men's House of Detention on 
Riker's Island, will be presented by videomakers Claude 
Bellerand Stefan Moore at AIVF on Wednesday, May 21st at 
8:00 p.m. Moore and Beller will discuss the process by which 
their tape came to be made, funding and distribution. 
PRESUMED INNOCENT will soon air on PBS. 


by Lillian Jimenez 

Recently residents of New York City halted production on Fort 
Apache, a feature film and later filed a $100,000,000.00 lawsuit 
against the producers, Time/Life & David Susskind Produc- 
tions. The film is publicized as a love story, set against the 40 
block radius surrounding the 41st Precinct, known as Fort 
Apache. A two-page advertisement in VARIETY billed the film: 
"Fort Apache: A chilling and tough movie about the South 
Bronx, a 40 block area with the highest crime rate in New 
York. Youth gangs, winos, junkies, pimps, hookers, maniacs, 
cop-killers and the embattled 41st Precinct just hanging in 

The story focuses on a pair of policemen (Paul Newman and 
Edward Asner) and their harrowing experiences at the hands 
of community residents of the 41st Precinct. The film is billed 
too as a love story. A word on this: Paul Newman's love in- 
terest is a Puerto Rican nurse who dies from an overdose. The 
portrayal of Blacks and Puerto Ricans in general consistently 
follows this demeaning trend. The characters are all either 
pimps, drug addicts, winos, maniacs, hookers or gang 
members. The characterization of women is particularly offen- 
sive. The women are cast either as giggling, coquettish 
teenagers — enticing the police — or as prostitutes who are 
homicidal maniacs. 

The protesters met with the producers of the film and an ex- 
ecutive from Time/Life Productions and were not satisfied 
with the outcome of the meeting. At that meeting, they asked 
why Puerto Ricans and Blacks were not portrayed in a more 
sympathetic, realistic way. The protesters were informed by 
the producers that they were looking at the characters with 
"jaded eyes". After this initial meeting and several more 
meetings, the Committee Against Fort Apache was formed. 
CAFA is currently constituted by: United Tremont Trades, 
Union of Patriotic Puerto Ricans, El Museo del Barrio, 
Association of Hispanic Arts, United Bronx Parents, Coalition 
in Defense of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Rights, New Rican 
Village, Black United Front and several Latin student associa- 
tions and concerned individuals. The Committee maintains 
that the film is racist and that production should cease. Their 
main contention is that the film perpetuates the same 
negative stereotypes of Puerto Ricans and Blacks and that 
this constitutes slander. "Nowhere in the film do you see the 
hard-working people of the South Bronx . . . those that are 
struggling to keep the roofs over their heads . . . the people 
who are fighting back against the decay and despair in the 
South Bronx," says Diana Perez, spokesperson for the com- 
mittee. The Committee insists that the film is particularly 
harmful at this time because of fiscal cutbacks to essential 
services in Black and Puerto Rican communities. "If Puerto 

David Suskind and Ed Asner confer on FORT APACHE set. 

Ricans and Blacks are portrayed as violent savages who have 
created their own miserable conditions, then these cutbacks 
are justified . . . not only do we not contribute to their finan- 
cial upkeep . . . but we are getting what we deserve. . .", says 
Ms. Perez. 

In an attempt to permanently halt production, the group has 
submitted a petition to the New York State Supreme Court to 
restrain Time/Life & Susskind Productions from continuing 
production. The suit, filed by William Kunstler, Is still pending 
in court, much to the chagrin of Time/Life. The producers have 
appealed to the Committee with promises of employment on 
the film and writers' workshops for community residents. Ms. 
Perez angrily charges, "They're trying to buy us off, like they 
always do ... this happened with WNET during the 
Realidades series controversy . . . but we've learned our 
lessons. We won't stop until the production is halted. If they 
are not interested in making a film that fairly depicts the reali- 
ty of Puerto Rican and Black people, then they aren't going to 
make one that distorts our reality." 

Cultural activities, public hearings, educational presentations 
and demonstrations are planned for the coming months. For 
more information, contact Jose Rivera at United Tremont 
Trades (212) 652-0089. 


Jaa fytetoM 

BILLY IN THE LOWLANDS, a film by Jan Egleson 


Jan Egleson wrote, directed and edited BILLY IN THE LOWLANDS (1977), which at this writing has been awarded an Emmy in 
the New England region. He is also the writer and director of another feature in progress, working title THE DARK END OF 

Randall Conrad is the New England Coordinator for the Independent Feature Project. He and Christine Dall together wrote, 
produced and directed a feature they are now editing, THE DOZENS. 

RC: I see some of the same faces in the rushes of your new 
film as in your first. What are some of the differences between 
BILLY IN THE LOWLANDS and the film now in progress? 

JE: I'm trying to avoid some of the dramatic problems that 
BILLY had, and trying to have more characters. BILLY was 
episodic to the extent that it's the film of a journey, people 
don't reappear. I'm trying to get involved in more people's 
lives and go deeper in this film, I think that's really what I was 

It's very difficult. You take low budget films and they look like 
life, you know, just like overseeing things. You can pull them 


off, often, because they have the qualities of life on the run. 
And that's okay, if they're technically awkward and therefore 
sort of lovable. 

Yet then how expressive can you be? You try and deal with 
things that become deeper, and with more themes, and you 
begin to approach what I'm calling fiction. There's more struc- 
ture, more control. . . 

RC: Can you sum up the story of the new film? 

JE: The film deals with two issues. It deals with a young 
woman growing up through adolescence, and it's also partial- 


ly about racial tensions which affect her life. It's about a 
young white woman who is witness to the death of a black 

RC: A violent death? 

JE: A violent death, but accidental. The film details her work- 
ing out of her responsibilities and her moral position because 
she's a witness. It is complicated by the fact that her boy- 
friend is a suspect in the death. In this accident in which a 
black kid is killed there are white kids around, and although 
they had nothing to do with it, the assumption of the media 
and the police is that it must be a racial incident — the theme 
is really institutional racism — therefore they begin looking 
for culprits when in fact it's purely accidental. And the film is 
the working out of that, always seen from the point of view of 
the kids. 

And there are other involvements in the film, the young 
woman deals with her mother, with whom she lives, and her 
mother's boyfriend, and the tensions in that relationship, as in 
the scene you saw today where she's being flirtatious with 
him. And . . . I'll have to work this whole plot down to a 
sentence! It'll be a real awkward sentence! 

RC: Christine and I deliberately plotted our own screenplay as 
episodically as possible. 

JE: So you could move stuff around. 

RC: It was surprising how far you could move stuff around, 
both throughout the scripting and also in editing of course. 
We could move scenes around and get very different values, 
and a different buildup in the story, different tensions. To this 
day we're still shuffling a scene around here and there. 

JE: I realized, writing this film, that I tend to write so I can't 
do that. I'm always trying to construct these things as I did in 
theatre, with a thread that pulls things around. It's good to try 
the things you feel you can't already do automatically. 

RC: I had an epiphany just recently about different ap- 
proaches to dramatic film writing. See what you think about 
this. I notice that even though I supposedly studied wide 
areas of literature, I was always much more interested in nar- 
rative prose fiction that I was in theatre or drama or poetry 
either. My kind of structure is not around conflict of 
characters but much more around one central consciousness. 
How do you sense your own background? I know you come 
out of a strong theatre formation. 

JE: That's true. And I approach the writing in terms of acting, 
that's my background too. I'm always trying to write actable 
scenes. But that is also because good acting is the only 
resource you have, if you don't have money. It's the only thing 
you've got that's persuasive. Anything else will be done better 
than you could by those who can spend the money. Vistas, 
cars, crane shots, you just can't do it. 

I also try and write for specific people who I know I want, 
because again I think that is your main advantage. 

RC: So you have a good idea who'll be playing your part 
before you begin writing it? 

JE: Yes, this film was virtually cast before writing, with some 
important exceptions. The woman who plays the girl's mother 
is from New York, and I didn't know who was going to play 
that part when I wrote it. There are certain categories you 
can't get in Boston. Also the guy who plays the truck driver is 
from the West Coast, though he used to work here and that's 
how I knew him and knew he was going to play the part. On 
the East Coast, if you want a 38-year-old actor, they've mostly 
moved away if they're any good. 

RC: Chris and I observed the exact same thing, either they've 
left town or they've given up acting. 

JE: I hope that Brustein and his theatre at the Loeb are going 
to bring in some actors. More older actors will be working 
here, which is really good for all of us. It will be a reason for 
others to stay here and work too. 

RC: Do you find that the difference between theatrical acting 
and film acting is something to be dealt with? 

JE: No, but you know what I find? It's not the theatrical acting 
that's the problem, I'm convinced. It's this. If you mix the, so 
to speak, nonprofessional actors and professional actors, 
there will definitely be a difference in style, there's no ques- 
tion, in films like this. 

An example we both know would be Paul Benedict, who plays 
Billy's father in BILLY. Some people think he is outsized and 
theatrical, and they say, well, of course, he has a theatrical 
background. But that's not the reason. The reason is that he 
has more resources as a performer, and he performs the part 
in a way that nonprofessionals don't. He does more things at 
once — two or three things at the same time. The nonprofes- 
sionals won't. They'll do one thing — and they may do it very 
well, for example they'll act very angry and be absolutely con- 
vincing — but they won't, for example, act very angry and very 
guilty about it at the same time. But a professional will, and 
that makes them look different. So people say, well, this one 
looks a little too large. But I think it's the mixture between 
those who have extensive theatrical experience or screen ex- 
perience and nonprofessionals like the kids, who don't have 
those resources, even though they're very good. You always 
have to watch that problem in doing this kind of film. 

RC: And what about theatrical acting simply in the sense of a 
different kind of tempo, or the difference between playing off 
a live audience or not, for instance. A lot of times, it amounts 
to purely technical problems to be solved in editing. But we 
found that, for example, a lot of replies back and forth move 
too slowly in our two-shots. The actors leave in a beat time, 
while film seems to call for a speedier playing. 

JE: Howard Hawks used to ask his cast to do overlapping 
lines, and made them talk about twice as fast as they would 
normally talk. This was when he was doing comedies, but 
nevertheless it's a technique, and I can understand why he did 
it. It's true. I think when you're filming in real situations, like 
you or I tend to do — say you're in a car, and you're really 
shooting in a car — people tend to slow down to the rhythm 
of life, which is neither the rhythm of the stage or that of film. 
And it's a directorial task to jump in there and make sure this 
scene has a little extra energy. The actors I've worked with 
who have a lot of film experience will do that. I can show you 
scenes where they do it automatically. 

Having been an actor I have this rather delicate idea that there 
are certain things you don't tell actors, like to go faster. True, 
in the second week I was saying that's great, just do it twice 
as fast — which was certainly crass direction. If I'd been an 
actor I'd have thought, what a stupid thing to say. But as a 
director I realize it's absolutely to the point. 

The actors get it through experience. If you're working with 
people that have had a lot of film experience, you find that 
when you say, okay, I'm going to shoot this with a 25mm lens, 
they know exactly that that's going to be a closeup, and they 
start working differently right away. 

RC: That's actually sort of the principle I had in mind for a 
technical workshop. Actors may know the mechanics of stage 
work very well; if we could demystify film technology, il- 
lustrate that there is, for example, a relationship between 
them and the camera that doesn't have its equivalent on the 
stage, that would be important. 

How do you structure a rehearsal? Do you keep the scene in a 


big block — that's what Christine and I did most often — then 
break it down into smaller units as you go? 

JE: I do it different ways with different people. With Laura I 
did big chunks of scenes. With her theatrical background, she 
could do it that way. With other people I would break it down. 
Sometimes in rehearsal, I wouldn't even worry about the mid- 
dle of a scene. I'd just take the beginning and rehearse it over 
and over. . . . And during shooting, when I got farther down, 
for one thing I stopped shooting scenes in masters all the 
time, it just wasn't worth it. I knew I never was going to use 
this great wide shot. In BILLY I always did' everything in 
masters out of nervousness. In this film I just stopped doing 
it. I just said, I'm going to shoot this part of the scene, and 
that part ... I became much more fluid. It was like relearning 
fifty years of film history. 

RC: Isn't there a problem when, say, you rehearse a scene in a 
block, but then you've got to shoot it out of sequence and out 
of order anyway, and if they've built their part and their 
character and their objectives in an entire pattern that they 
now can't use as a whole, doesn't that create last-minute 

JE: I think it's always frustrating, unsatisfying for an actor. 
But it's one of the skills an actor has to learn if you want to 
work in film. Actually what I would do with Laura if we were 
filming, say, only the middle of a scene, is that I would sit 
down with her and try to talk her through the beginning of it 
right before a take. Which she liked. 

RC: When Chris and I were casting — obviously, in the first 
place we cast whoever was going to be good, regardless of 
their preparation techniques or whatever, but we had talked 
over the idea that technical actors would be better suited to 
film in general than emotive actors. This seems to have been 
borne out only in some respects. I think I got attached to this 
clever little distinction for irrational reasons. I think I proceed- 
ed to underestimate the importance of emotion. Christine, 
when we would be directing a scene, never undervalued emo- 
tion, but I tended to. 

JE: You want to find people who have control and emotional 
resources. I would always go for emotional, myself, and then 
hope to overcome the other problems. Again, that's my actor 
background. Acting in films is real tough. 

RC: What do actors do around Boston, given that there are 
oniy a couple of dramatic films being made at any moment, if 

JE: They don't do anything. That's the problem. 

RC: And they can't learn. 

JE: That's part of the problem. You can only learn by doing it. 

RC: Also a well-known problem with directing films, when you 
only get to do it every three or four years. 

JE: . . .And spend the first two weeks of your four weeks' 
shoot remembering how to do it! By the time you're in your 
final week you're just hitting your stride! It's awful. 

RC: I think people are interested in hearing about dramatic 
films like this getting made in Boston. It seems to be happen- 
ing a little more frequently, and you're still one of the pioneers 
in doing it. 

JE: It's heartening. Some people came in the other day with a 
local script that looked good, a $100,000 kind of film. And 
there's the one you and Chris are cutting. And you may know 
more than I do if there are others around too. I think people 
are doing more, and there is going to be more money from 
public television to do these things. The more people figure 
out that it can be done, the more they will get money to do it, 
and I think that's great. 


I think it's really important, as people now begin to do more 
and more of this stuff — begin to do their second and third 
features — that there be ways to do films so that people can 
keep working on this scale. I think that's very hard. I notice 
that with this second film of mine. You clearly want more 
resources, your horizons expand, and you want to do more. 
You want to be expressive, and there really is a direct relation- 
ship, after a certain point, between money and ex- 
pressiveness. You want more days in which to work. And you 
may want certain things visually which take more time and 
more resources. 

And the problem is, what's going to happen to people after 
they've made one or two of these low-budget features, and 
they have some reputation or some ability to attract the in- 
terest of the industry? Are they going to jump over to the in- 
dustry, or are they going to keep working on this level? 

And so here's the next aspect of the problem. We're talking 
about films that cost $100,000. That's really borderline. When 
you begin to want to work a little more adventurously and you 
legitimately need more money, like $200,000 or $300,000, that 
money is very hard to get. 

What I'm really trying to say is that there is a big jump be- 
tween $100,000 (or sometimes less) and $300,000 or $400,000 
that would permit you to work on a richer expressive scale. 
That jump is almost impossible. I can't see anybody who has 
made it. Dick Pearce did, I guess; HEARTLAND got N.E.H. 
money. But those cases are rare. 

It's not just the cost of making the film, as we know. It's the 
cost of exploiting the film, as they say in Variety, Just selling 
the thing costs you as much as making it. 

Certainly one thing that every filmmaker now has to think 
about is that the budget has got to include what you are going 
to do with the film when it's done. Clearly, the temptation is to 
forget that — as we certainly preferred to do in the case of 
both of our films — and that's a mistake. 

RC: It also means that the director, already doubling as the 
producer, now has to triple as the self-distributor, like it or 

A version of this interview has been published in Visions, 
lll:10/IV:1, December 1979-January 1980, the newsletter of the 
Boston Film/Video Foundation, Inc. 

Laura Harrington and Henry Tomaszewski inTHEDARKENDOFTHESTREETafllm 
by Jan Egleson. 



Hi folks: 

We'd like to send you a little report from the Berlin Film 
Festival which might be of interest to other filmmakers. 

Prior to the festival we arranged to have a market booth to pre- 
sent some of the Jon Jost films and several films by American 
independents: Rick Schmidt (1988 — THE REMAKE, A MAN, A 
WOMAN, AND A KILLER), Ross McElwee and Michel 
Negroponte (SPACE COAST), and Peter Hutton and Peter 
Rose (A SELECTION OF SHORTS). Yugoslavian filmmaker 
Franci Slak and Framework, a British film journal wishing to 
sell film books and distribute the magazine, also agreed to 
share the booth. In total, the booth cost 600DM (about $360) to 
obtain and payment entitled each participating film to receive 
one free screening in the market section of the festival. 

In the first days of the festival, a number of filmmakers whom 
we had never met before arrived. Many of them were first- 
timers at festivals, or at least to festivals of the scope of the 
Berlin Film Festival. They arrived woefully ill-equipped to take 
advantage of many of the possibilities the occasion offered. 
Realizing the problems they faced (lack of promotional 
materials, etc.) we decided to open the booth to any indepen- 
dent filmmaker who wished to join and to help them in any 
way possible to broaden their impact at the festival. By the 
fourth or fifth day of the festival, the roster included: Eagle 
Pennell (THE WHOLE SHOOTIN' MATCH), Deborah Shaffer 
MOTHERS, and others), Michelle Citron (DAUGHTER RITE), 
Martha Ansara (MY SURVIVAL AS AN ABORIGINAL), Warring- 
ton Hudlin (STREET CORNER STORIES), Sally Potter 
(THRILLER), Susan Clayton (SONG OF THE SHIRT) and Ricky 
Leacock with a selection of films by MIT students — Carolyn 
Gloria Davenport and Rachel Strickland (JUST BLUE), and 
Mark Ranee (MOM). 

We were able to provide materials and information for printing 
inexpensive promotional flyers, act as an information center, 
and serve as a kind of switchboard connecting potential 
buyers, interested journalists, and so on with the filmmakers 
or their representatives. In the context of a very active and 
complex festival, this small booth was able to attract con- 
siderable attention for the filmmakers, as well as serving as a 
kind of home base or social gathering point. 

As an essentially anarchic structure, what each filmmaker got 
out of the booth was in proportion to what they put in. In 
terms of tangible results thus far known (bearing in mind that 
many of the contacts made will not bear fruit until sometime 
into the future), some of the benefits included: gaining market 
screenings for almost all the films, including many not 
presented formally at the festival; obtaining extra screenings 
at better times within the context of the forum section of the 
festival (for example, Martha Ansara, who travelled to the 
festival all the way from Australia, was able to arrange two ad- 
ditional screenings of her film at prime times instead of the 
10:30 a.m. slot originally scheduled); obtaining a special 
screening, in Franci Slak's case, of his Super-8 feature DAILY 
NEWS; and, in the case of SPACE COAST, managing to slip 
the film into a vacancy in the official forum section. Through 
the market screenings and the heightened visibility of the col- 
lective presence of this grouping of independent filmmakers, 
a number of films received offers for purchase. Others were 
invited to other festivals. We hope to gather together specific 

information regarding sales (to whom, for how much, etc.) and 
make this information available for reference. 

Additionally, in the closing days of the festival, we were able 
to obtain a press conference period in which to discuss prob- 
lems relating to independent filmmaking. 

The A.U.F. stand (Association of Unassociated Filmmakers) 
was a spontaneous creation and was not intended as an ongo- 
ing organization. It self-destructed with the closing of the 
festival. However, we would hope that the example will result 
in similar self-help efforts in other situations. 

While not all festivals have such markets or structures open 
to this type of utilization, there is little doubt that in- 
dependents can greatly increase their impact through this 
kind of cooperative effort. In Berlin, the benefits accrued by 
joining together cost each participant only $35. 

—Alicia Wille and Jon Jost 


In the September issue of The Independent we reported that 
the 1979 USA Film Festival Short Film competition had only 
one judge that selected short films for screenings at this 
festival. From the over 400 films submitted s/he selected 11 
films to run in the program. Six of the eleven films are 
distributed by this person's non-theatrical distribution com- 
pany. This year the festival announced in the December issue 
of Millimeter that four new judges were added. They are: John 
Canemaker, Barbara Ortiz, Susan Rice, and Tom Tyson. 
Despite some ties to the original jurist's distribution com- 
pany, this group clearly is an improvement for independent 
filmmakers over last year's (and past years') one-juror system. 
Perhaps the USA Festival is becoming more receptive to in- 
dependent work — Mitchell Block 



FILMEX is one of the leading film festivals in the world. This 
year it came to my attention that independent filmmakers 
were getting LOST in this 18-day event. Despite being one of 
the three festivals in the United States that can qualify 
documentary shorts and features for the Academy Awards 
competition that are not in 35mm, and despite the fact that 
FILMEX shows more shorts and independent films than any 
festival sanctioned by the International Federation of Film 
Producers Association (IFFPA), FILMEX is still shafting in- 
dependent filmmakers' shorts and features. They are doing 
this in two ways. Firstly, FILMEX does not set up press 
screenings for all of the films being shown. Only major films 
tend to get press screenings. Secondly, FILMEX is not pro- 
viding the same treatment to all participants — some feature 
film producers/directors receive per diems and transportation 
funds, passes to all screenings, press parties, and so on. A 
short filmmaker might get a few tickets to his/or her own 
screening. One independent feature filmmaker, whose film is 
being shown, reported being offered a total of 16 tickets in 
total for the Festival. FILMEX, however, did assist him in set- 
ting up a screening for two key local critics, and they provided 
a screening room. Perhaps festivals could provide a written 
outline of what you get if they select your film to screen for a 
paying or non-paying audience. — Mitchell Block 

© MB 1980 




TWO POSITIONS available for film/ 
audio/closed-circuit TV technicians in 
small maintenance/repair department of 
non-profit alternate media center. Duties 
include repair and maintenance of film, 
audio and television equipment; supervi- 
sion of interns; developing upgraded 
equipment systems and preventative 
maintenance plan. Salary negotiable. 
For more info contact David Sasser, 
Young Filmakers/Video Arts, 4 Rivington 
St., NY NY 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

CHIEF TECHNICIAN: non-profit alter- 
nate media center seeks self-motivated 
person to manage and develop main- 
tenance/repair department. Facilities in- 
clude color TV studio, 16mm sound mix 
and %" video editing systems. Re- 
quirements: 2-3 years color CCTV 
maintenance and some systems design 
experience; strong organizational skills; 
ability to supervise technicians. Salary 
negotiable; excellent benefits; equal op- 
portunity/affirmative action employer. 
Contact David Sasser, Young Filmakers/ 
Video Arts, 4 Rivington St., NY NY 
10002, (212)673-9361. 

position in equipment loan department 
of non-profit alternate media center. 
Duties include check in and out of pro- 
duction and presentation equipment; 
repair requests and follow-up; maintain- 
ing inventories; recommending equip- 
ment for purchase; budgeting; policy 
development; supervising intern. Re- 
quires knowledge of 16mm, Super 8, 
slide, audio and small format portable 
video equipment. Salary: $10,300. Con- 
tact David Sasser, Young Filmakers/ 
Video Arts, 4 Rivington St., NY NY 
10002, (212) 673-9361. 

two positions available: set-up person 
for rental equipment and administrative 
assistant. Contact Tom Anderson, (404) 

IMAGE Film/Video Center is accepting 
resumes for Director position, available 
March 31. The Director is responsible 
for coordinating the Center activities in 
conjunction with IMAGE Executive 
Committee, motivating volunteers, par- 
ticipating in fundraising and grant- 
writing; and represents IMAGE on 
statewide and national level as advocate 
for independents. Must be effective 
communicator as writer and speaker, 
possess business and management 

skills, have background in independent 
film/video, and be in touch with current 
independent community. Contact 
IMAGE Film/Video Center, 972 
Peachtree St., Suite 213, Atlanta GA 
30309, (404) 874-4756. 

FILM PRODUCTION company seeks 
researcher to work on spec for grant- 
funded film series. Must be self- 
motivated, enjoy library research, have 
interviewing skills. Send resume to Low 
Sulphur Productions, 355 West 85 St., 
NY NY 10024. 

dent Telecommunications Corporation, 
located at University of Minnesota, 
seeks Executive Director. Qualifications 
include demonstrated ability in ad- 
ministration, budgeting and fundraising 
for non-profit organizations; familiarity 
with community video and cable TV; ex- 
perience working with non-profit boards 
of directors; understanding of and abili- 
ty to work within university environ- 
ment. Send current resume with 3 
references by May 1 to University Stu- 
dent Telecommunications Corporation, 
425 Ontario St. SE, Minneapolis MN 
55414, Att: Sallie E. Fischer. 

tion seeks two Master Teachers to 
assist with training of interpretive staff. 
Must have demonstrated knowledge of 
wide range of interpretation and com- 
munication techniques applicable to 
outdoor living history museum, and 
general knowledge of American colonial 
history and culture. Well-developed 
writing skills as well as experience in 
use of audio and video equipment 
desired. Contact Colonial Williamsburg 
Foundation, Drawer C, Williamsburg VA 

wanted. Contact Stephen C. Lowe, PO 
Box 99, Peck Slip Station, NY NY 10038, 
(212) 825-0385. 

LOOKING FOR apprentice position with 
film company, or recording studio that 
does film scoring soundtracks. Have 
studio experience in music recording 
and film scoring; have studied film; and 
have experience with 16mm, Super 8 
and video. Available for work starting 
June 1. Contact Cheryl A. Smith, 9 
Green St., Fredonia NY 14063. 

WORK WANTED: actress-singer avail- 
able for work. Experienced in television. 
For resume and demo videotape, call 
Jody (212) 924-3166. 

WORK WANTED: as Production Assis- 
tant in film, to gain experience. Avail- 
able end of May through September. 
Please contact Steve Levin, 61-45 214th 
St., NY NY 11364, (212) 224-3949. 

COMPOSER of minimalist and ex- 
perimental music wishes to work with 
film and videomakers on creative proj- 
ects. Have completed works and master 
tapes on file. For resume, tape and infor- 
mation, contact Mark Pierson (617) 

camera and lights. Call (212) 662-1913. 


SION CENTER will present a Master 
Lecture Series on Business Aspects of 
Feature Production, beginning Thurs- 
day, 4/17 at 7:30 pm with Edmund 
Rosenkrantz on contracts, copyrights 
and incorporation. The schedule con- 
tinues 4/24 with Jan Saunders and Maxi 
Cohen on funding resources; 5/1, 
Michael Hausman on planning produc- 
tions; 5/8, Glenn Silber on independent 
distribution; 5/15, Stuart Byron on the 
film industry power structure; 5/22, 
Joseph E. Levine on financing within the 
industry; 5/29, Samuel Goldrich on the 
role of the accountant; 6/5, a major 
studio executive on theatrical distribu- 
tion. Subscription tickets to the 8 2-hour 
lectures, which will be held at the Zukor 
Theatre in the Astoria Center, are 
available for $40 from the Office of 
Public Progams, Master Lecture Series, 
Astoria Motion Picture & Television 
Center, 34-31 35 St., Astoria NY 11106, 
(212) 784-4520. 

Summer Institute on the Media Arts will 
be held June 23-August 15 at the 
Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts as 
part of the Harvard Summer School. It 
will include the 3rd annual Anthropo- 
logical Film seminar with Jean Rouch, 
Emilie de Brigard and eminent guests. 
This overview of the history, theory and 
practice of anthropological film will in- 
clude screenings of many films never 
before seen in the U.S., and students are 
encouraged to bring their own films & 
tapes. Graduate & undergraduate credit 
will be offered. For catalog & applica- 
tion, contact Harvard Summer School, 
20 Garden St., Cambridge MA 02138, 
(617) 495-2921; for greater detail on 
course content, contact Roberta Mur- 
phy, Carpenter Center for the Visual 


Arts, Harvard University, 24 Quincy St., 
Cambridge MA 02138, (617) 495-3254. 

conference sponsored by UCLA Exten- 
sion, SAG and Video magazine, will be 
held May 2-3 at the UCLA campus and 
20th Century-Fox. The program will 
focus on the effects of current home 
entertainment trends on industry job op- 
portunities, programming, copyright 
protection, royalties and performing 
rights. The fee is $45 ($20 for SAG 
members). For more info contact The 
Arts, UCLA Extension, PO Box 24901, 
Los Angeles CA 90024, (213) 825-9064. 

MENT: Effective Accounting & 
Budgeting Techniques is the title of a 
seminar to be presented by the Univer- 
sity of Detroit at The Biltmore Hotel, 
Madison Ave. & 43rd St., NY NY 10017, 
(212) 687-7000. It will be held April 28-29. 
For more info contact The Division of 
Continuing Education, University of 
Detroit, 4001 W. McNichols Rd., Detroit 
Ml 48221, (313)927-1025. 

CONGRESS will be held May 28-30 at 
the New York Hilton. Workshop fee: $35 
per seminar until May 12, $40 each 
thereafter. Exhibition Hall open free of 
charge. For more info contact VCC/ 
Conference Management Corporation, 
500 Summer St., Stamford CT 06901. 

WORKSHOP for educators, researchers 
& librarians will be held July 13-19 at the 
Center for Advanced Film Studies. It will 
cover acquisitions, cataloguing, 
reference sources, manuscript collec- 
tions, oral histories, stills and 
photographs, & archival preservation 
programs. Tuition is $360; registration 
deadline June 30. Contact Registrar, 
Film/TV Documentation Workshop, 
American Film Institute, 501 Doheny 
Rd., Beverly Hills CA 90210. 

STITUTE to introduce traditionally- 
trained film academicians to the actual 
process of feature filmmaking will be of- 
fered from August 3-8 at the Center for 
Advanced Film Studies. Tuition is $275; 
$25 deposit required. For application or 
more info, contact Film Education Sum- 
mer Institute, National Education Ser- 
vices, American Film Institute, Kennedy 
Center, Washington DC 20566, or An- 
nette Bag ley at (202) 828-4080. 

host a workshop for educators and 
librarians at the American Film Festival, 
on May 25 from 3-5 pm at the Sheraton 
Centre, Seventh Ave. & 53rd St. The 

focus will be on using art films 
w/children, both as lead-ins to activities 
& as components of film exhibitions w/ 
no follow-up activities. MCC will also 
conduct 2 evening workshop/seminars 
for filmmakers & writers in their con- 
ference room in the NY Theological 
Seminary building at 3 West 29 St., 11th 
floor, NY NY 10001. June 12, 5:45-9:30 
pm: A Special Audience with Special 
Needs; June 19, 5:45-9:30 pm: Treatment 
and Concept in Children's Materials. 
Registration fee is $25 for both work- 
shops, $15 for one, until May 15; $18.50 
each thereafter. For more info or regis- 
tration forms, call Jane Rayleigh at 
MCC, (212)679-9620. 

SHOPS: %" Videocassette Editing, 

Sat.-Sun. May 3-4, 10 am-6 pm, to pro- 
vide in-depth understanding of theory & 
process along w/hands-on experience. 
$200 until April 18, $215 thereafter, in- 
cludes lunch. Financing/Budgeting for 
Production Seminars: Part I, How to 
Finance a Film or Video Production, 
Tues. May 6, 7-10 pm, on subsidy, split, 
negative pickup & exhibitor financing. 
Part II, How to Budget a Film or Video 
Production, Tues. May 13, 7-10 pm, on 
budget preparation, all aspects of 
above- and below-the-line costs. $30 for 
both seminars until April 22, $40 
thereafter, $20 each. Script Develop- 
ment Workshop, dates to be announced, 
to allow writers to develop their works- 
in-progress in private sessions with a 
distinguished screenwriter & group 
meetings with peers. For more info con- 
tact Young Filmakers/Video Arts, 4 Riv- 
ington St., NY NY 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

theme of the 5th annual Goddard Col- 
lege Community Media Summer Project, 
to be held June 2-August 22. For more 
info contact Community Media, Box 
CM-80, Goddard College, Plainfield VT 
05667, (802)454-8311. 


FOR SALE: About 150 used film 
shipping-boxes, 10/15 minute size, can & 
reels included, good condition. Sold as 
is, whole batch or quantities. Call after- 
noon or evening; if not in leave message 
on recording device. Paul B. Ross, 209 
West 21 St., NY NY 10011, (212) 

FOR SALE: Bell & Howell 70-DR, Filmo 
Camera, like new, 16/35/50mm Cooke, 
Schneider, Kino Cosmicar lenses ($500). 
Guillotine splicer ($35). Hot splicer, 
Maier Hancock, 8/16mm ($75). Call Jef- 
frey Lew, (212) 677-6444. 

FOR SALE: Frezzolini conversion of SS- 
III General camera, crystal sync, on- 
board bat, 2 batteries, 2 400' mags, 
case, single-system 9.5-95 Angenieux 
lens w/focus rings ($4,250). Berkey 
colortran light kit: 3 600-watt lights 
w/stands, barn doors, scrims, clamps 
($400). Universal fluid-head tripod with 
stay sets and case ($325). Contact 
Jonathan Sinaiko, Box 325 Canal St. Sta- 
tion, NY NY 10013, (212) 925-9723. 

FOR SALE: 5700' of 7231 plus-x 
negative, 1200' of 7247 color negative, 
200' of 7278 tri-x reversal, and 300' of 
7276 plus-x reversal. Call Refocus Pro- 
ductions, (203) 226-5289. 

FOR SALE: Beaulieu 16RPZ auto ex- 
posure/power zoom camera with 
12-120mm Angenieux, 2 batteries, 
charger, case ($2200). Auricon 16mm 
double-system camera, converted to 
crystal by Mitch Bogdanovich; runs on 
110 volts AC or 12 volts DC at flick of a 
switch; w/12-120mm Angenieux zoom, 2 
Mitchell mags (400'), battery belt, 
cables, shoulder rest ($2500). Call Doug 
Hart, (212)937-7250. 

FOR SALE: 7 brand new rolls of 16mm 
7247, same emulsion. Call immediately 
Lynn Rogoff, (212) 966-7563. 

FOR SALE: Used 16mm hot splicer in 
very good condition ($200 or best offer). 
One pair Moviola rewinds with shafts for 
4 reels ($50). Would prefer to sell both 
as package deal. Also entire published 
volume of Filmmakers' Newsletter 
(1967-79) & several years' worth of other 
film periodicals, all available at 
negotiable prices. Contact Julian 
Rubenstein, 590 West End Avenue, NY 
NY 10024, (212) 799-7265. 

facilities available. Fully equipped 
rooms, 24-hour access in security 
building. 6-plate Steenbeck, 6-plate 
Moviola flatbed, sound transfers from 
1 /4 " to 16mm mag, narration recording, 
sound effects library, interlock screen- 
ing room available. Cinetudes Film Pro- 
ductions Ltd, 377 Broadway, NY NY 
10013, (212) 966-4600. 

RTS SYSTEMS, a subsidiary of Compact 
Video Systems Inc., is now an official 
supplier to RCA's Broadcast Equipment 
Division. RTS Systems' complete line of 
professional intercommunication equip- 
ment can be purchased through any 
RCA sales office throughout the world. 

WANTED: Eclair CM-3 Camerette 
motors (crystal &/or constant speed), 
magazines, Kinoptik lenses (especially 
40/32/28mm), any other parts & ac- 
cessories. Call Doug Hart, (212) 




MEDIA BUS: video editing facilities for 
artists & producers (non-commercial). 
Beta, 1/2" and %" to Sony 2860. Dub- 
bing, titling, proc amp, RM 430, audio 
mixing. $15/hr w/ engineer. Contact 
Media Bus Inc., 120 Tinker St., Wood- 
stock NY 12498, (914) 679-7739. 

made arrangements w/several entertain- 
ment lawyers to handle foreign sales 
contracts for independents at lower 
than usual costs. For details contact 
IFP, 80 East 11 St., NY NY 10003, (212) 

NOW AVAILABLE: NEA Media Arts 1980 
guidelines, listing funding programs for 
non-profit organizations & individuals in 
production, exhibition, publications etc. 
Address requests to National Endow- 
ment for the Arts, 2401 E St. NW, 
Washington DC 20506, (202) 634-6300. 

MORE NEA NEWS: The deadline for 
Media Arts Center grants of up to 
$50,000 is May 2. Grants are awarded on- 
ly to regional media arts centers and 
must be 100% matched. For information 
and applications, contact Media Center 
Program, National Endowment for the 
Arts, 2401 E St. NW, Washington DC 

15 is the deadline for applications to the 
National Endowment for the Humanities 
Youth Projects Program for Planning & 
Pilot Grants. Grants of $2,500 for plann- 
ing and $2,500 or $5,000 for implementa- 
tion are awarded for developing out-of- 
school humanities programs for child- 
ren and youth under 21. For guidelines & 
application contact NEH, Mail Stop 351, 
Youth Projects Guidelines, 806 15th St. 
NW, Washington DC 20506. 

MEDIA WORKS, a Washington DC a/v 
production & consulting firm, now in- 
cludes among its services still picture 
and film/video research, screening & 
delivery. For brochure, write Media 
Works Inc., 1301 20 St. NW, Suite 417, 
Washington DC 20036, (202) 466-3646. 
DC COMMISSION on the Arts & 
Humanities is accepting applications 
for art project grants of up to $10,000. 
Individuals & . non-profit organizations 
with a DC address may apply. For more 
info & applications, contact Gilbert Col- 
well, DC Commission on the Arts & 
Humanities, 1012 14 St. NW, Suite 1203, 
Washington DC 20005, (202) 724-5613. 

Small Grants Program is accepting ap- 
plications for grants from a few hundred 
to $50,000 to support development & 
demonstration of small-scale, energy- 
efficient concepts & projects by in- 


dividuals, organizations & institutions. 
Application forms & deadlines (all in 
April) vary by region. For address & 
phone number of your Regional Office 
of the US Department of Energy, contact 
Energy Information Clearinghouse for 
the Cultural Community, New York Hall 
of Science, Box 1032, Flushing NY 
11352, (212)699-9400. 

VIDEOSTOCKSHOTS supplies stock 
footage on 15-minute Master Broadcast 
videocassettes (other formats by re- 
quest). Each %" volume sells for $225 
plus $1.50 shipping & insurance; no 
clearance or dubbing fees. New releases 
include: Vol. 31, Starfield backgrounds 
—galaxies, nebulas, Milky Way; Vol. 32, 
Space backgrounds— Earth, moon, 
planets; Vols. 33 & 34, Industry & Pollu- 
tion—primarily exterior views of major 
industrial centers, many emitting 
pollutants into the atmosphere. For 
catalog contact Phil Marshall, Thomas 
J. Valentino Inc., 151 West 46 St., NY NY 
10036, (212) 246-4675. 

Center's new 16mm film & sound editing 
facility is available at reduced introduc- 
tory rates until May 1: daily (8 hours) — 
$30; 3 days in succession (24 hours) — 
$50; weekly (40 hours) — $125; monthly 
(160 hours) — $400; Graveyard Special 
— 40% off. Priority given to projects 
dealing with anthropology or promoting 
intercultural understanding. For more 
info contact Domingos Mascarenhas, 
(212) 473-6947, 777-6908. 


WGBH Public TV in Boston is planning 
an independent showcase. $10/minute. 
Contact Dorothy Chiesa, WGBH New 
Television Workshop, 125 Western Ave., 
Boston MA 02134, (617) 492-2777. 

NEW AGE subject matter videotapes 
sought by video publisher for syndica- 
tion to independent stations, network 
affiliates and via satellite. Subjects 
should include both hard and soft 
technologies, Mother Earth News-type 
stories. %", as close to broadcast quali- 
ty as possible. For more information 
contact Taylor Barcroft, New Earth 
Television WORKSystem Ltd., PO Box 
1281, Santa Cruz CA 95061, (408) 

duction and distribution company, is 
looking for productions along the lines 
of a documentary to distribute. Send 
description of film or tape to Shari 
Nussbaum, Program Development, 
Document Associates Inc., 211 East 43 
St., NY NY 10017, (212) 682-0730. 


seeking 16mm educational shorts. We 
are producers and distributors of 16mm 
films for the educational and television 
market. Contact Bill Mokin at (212) 
757-4868 or write Arthur Mokin Produc- 
tions Inc., 17 West 60 St., NY NY 10023. 

WNYC-TV/31 will broadcast its second 
annual independent film/video festival 
during prime time over a 15-night period 
in June, 1980. Subject matter and style 
will vary — documentary, experimental, 
narrative, poetic etc. with particular 
reference to the special interests of the 
New York urban audience. A small 
honorarium will be paid. For more info 
contact Danny O'Neil, Manager of TV 
Programming, WNYC-TV, 2500 
Municipal Building, NY NY 10007. 

SOUTHWESTERN Alternate Media Proj- 
ect is interested in receiving information 
on Super 8 filmmakers from all over the 
US, for consideration for future pro- 
grams at SWAMP and for general files 
on S8 filmmakers. Send to Willie Varela, 
Project Director, SWAMP, 100 West 
Robinson #B7, El Paso TX 79902. 

FILMWORKS for non-conventional 
screening situations or locational 
cinema pieces wanted for exhibition 
curated by University Gallery. May 
travel. Send descriptions, drawings and 
documentation of work to Michael 
Jones, Director, University Gallery, 
Wright State University, Dayton OH 

DESIGN ARTS program of NEA is 
soliciting info about film and videotapes 
on the design arts (architecture, urban 
and regional planning, landscape archi- 
tecture, graphic design, interior design, 
industrial design and fashion design) for 
comprehensive catalogue of audiovisual 
materials for use by audiences ranging 
from schools of design and film, to com- 
munity, cultural and government 
organizations. Contact Mary Bruton, 
Design Arts Program, National Endow- 
ment for the Arts, 2401 E St. NW, 
Washington DC 20506. 

FILM DISTRIBUTION company seeks 
animated shorts for general and 
children's programming, plus science 
fiction and fantasy shorts for theatrical 
package. Contact Serious Business 
Company, 1145 Mandana Blvd., Oakland 
CA 94610, (415)832-5600. 

COUNTRY'S FIRST late night live TV 
program seeks independently produced 
film/video productions. Contact Five All 
Night/Live All Night, Danny Schecter, 
Producer, WCVB-TV, 5 TV Place, 
Needham Branch, Boston MA 02192, 
(617) 449-0400. 

VIDEO RAINBOW/Center for Children's 
Video is inviting videomakers to submit 


their tapes for inclusion in the new 
video catalogue for librarians, 
museumologists, educators and public 
TV broadcasters, The Children's Video 
Set. Send name of videomaker, title, 
length, format, color/b&w and brief 
description (no tapes until requested) to 
Pam Berger or Julie Gantcher, 72 Mercer 
Ave., Hartsdale NY 10530, (914) 

TV PRODUCER Lovering Hayward seeks 
to purchase short documentary works of 
less than one hour (pre-produced or in 
some stage of completion) by regional 
filmmakers for inclusion in a matazine- 
format public TV series about rural in- 
dividuals who are involved with our 
vanishing resources or our basic attach- 
ment to the land. Please contact the 
New Hampshire Media Foundation, 
Phenix Hall, 40 North Main St., Concord 
NH 03301,(603)224-1240. 


over 30 papers written by key people in 
the fields of financing, distrib., exhibi- 
tion, audience development, foreign 
marketing and grantsmanship. Also in- 
cludes resource list of distributors, ex- 
hibitors, foreign theatrical and TV 
buyers. Now available in permanent 
bound form. $14 per copy plus postage 
($2.82 1st class, 81c 4th class). Make 
checks payable to Independent Feature 
Project, 80 East 11th St., NY NY 10003. 

being compiled by Mary Halawani and 
Pam Horowitz for indie fiction, 
documentary and animated feature films 
for a catalog for exhibitors, distributors, 
TV and cable buyers, and other film pro- 
grammers. To have your work included, 
send synopsis and production info to 
The Film Fund, 80 East 11th St., NY NY 

AND HUMANITIES — 265-page direc- 
tory, produced by the Federal Council 
on the Arts and Humanities, describes 
over 300 programs of 38 federal agen- 
cies and covers broad range of 

assistance for the arts/humanities. 
Financial aid in form of grants, loans, 
contracts, or stipends; employment op- 
portunities; info services; technical 
assistance; managerial counseling; 
traveling exhibits; reference collections 
and services; statistical data and train- 
ing opportunities. Order from Smith- 
sonian Institution Press, PO Box 1579, 
Washington DC 20013, for $7.75 plus 
85$ postage. 

LAW AND THE ARTS: A Handbook/ 
Sourcebook for Artists, Craftspeople, 
Art Attorneys & Arts Administrators, 
edited by Tern Horwitz. Includes sub- 
jects such as copyright, patent and 
trademarks, writers & the law, film/video 
& the law, how to set up non-profit 
corps. $15 plus $1.05 postage and handl- 
ing. Write to Lawyers for the Creative 
Arts, 111 N. Wabash, Chicago IL 60602. 

by Linda Blackaby, Dan Georgakas, and 
Barbara Margolis; concept by Affonso 
Beato; New York Zoetrope, 1980, 224 
pp.; paper $9.95, cloth $18.95 (includes 
postage and handling). A handbook 
designed to assist community groups in 
more effective uses of film. How to set 
program goals, objectives; how to select 
and locate films; how to find screening 
spaces and projection equipment; how 
to organize and publicize film screen- 
ings and series; how to facilitate pro- 
ductive discussion. To order, send 
check to Cine Information, 419 Park 
Avenue South, NY NY 10016. 

ON: A Comprehensive Guide to 16mm 
Films and Related Activites for Children, 
by Maureen Gaffney and Gerry 
Laybourne, available May, 1980. Paper 
$12.50, cloth $18.50. Documents 4 years 
of research w/children from 3-year-olds 
to teenagers, finding out how to make a 
broad selection of 16mm shorts, ranging 
from experimental animations and 
documentaries to story films, work with 
young people. Published by Oryx Press, 
2214 North Central Avenue, Phoenix AZ 

POLICY, published by the Rockefeller 
Foundation: covers indie, producers, 
organization, and the system; legisla- 
tion; technology; reports from the 
regions; and key themes and issues of 
telecommunications policy. Copies are 
free and available from Henry Romney, 
Director of Information, The Rockefeller 
Foundation, 1133 Avenue of the 
Americas, NY NY 10036. 

FILM FESTIVALS, published by 
Southern Illinois University, lists names 
of contact persons, film festival dates, 
entrance requirements, awards and 
other info useful to filmmakers in- 
terested in entering films in festivals, 
and to those who have a more general 
interest in educational film evaluation. 
Contains info on over 70 festivals. Can 
be ordered for $5 from Festival Direc- 
tory, Learning Resources Service, 
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 
I L 62901. 


TENTH ANNUAL Film Festival on the 
Exceptional Individual, the largest inter- 
national exposition specializing in films 
about disabilities, will be held in Los 
Angeles in October. Deadline: June 1. 
Films, videotapes and slide-tape pro- 
grams produced during the past 18 
months are eligible. A book with 
descriptions and acquisition informa- 
tion for each entry will be published. For 
more info and applications, contact Neil 
Goldstein, Film Festival Co-Chair- 
person, University Affiliated Program, 
Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, PO 
Box 54700 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles 
CA 90054, (213) 669-2300. 

22nd ANNUAL AMERICAN Film Festival 
will be held May 25-30 at the Sheraton 
Centre Hotel at Seventh Ave. & 52nd St. 
in NYC. Amos Vogel, Professor of Visual 
Communications at the University of 
Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of 
Communications, will select the Film As 
Art program for the Festival. This is a 
90-minute out-of-competition selection 
of experimental, personal & abstract 
short films focusing on the work of con- 
temporary film artists. For more info 
contact Educational Film Library 
Association, 43 West 61 St., NY NY 
10023, (212) 246-4533. 


WANTED: EFLA is interested in acquir- 
ing a new or used color receiver/monitor. 
Please let us know if you have one you 
would like to donate or sell. Contact 
Educational Film Library Association, 43 
West 61 St., NY NY 10023. 

EUE VIDEO SERVICES would like to 
clarify our policy concerning the storage 
of videotape materials: 1) We will store 
tapes in our library at 222 East 44 St. for 
6 months following any use of such 
material. 2) After 6 months of inactivity, 
material will automatically be sent to 
out-of-city storage. In order to have this 
material available for use, we require 24 
hours' notice. Material will be stored for 
an additional 18 months in a dust-free, 
controlled temperature/humidity envi- 
ronment. 3) At the end of a total of 2 
years of inactivity, all materials will be 
sent to the owner. If they should be sent 
to other than your billing address, 
please notify our Videotape Library. For 
further info contact EUE/Screen Gems 
Video Services, 222 East 44 St., NY NY 
10017, (212) 867-4030. 


New York, N.Y. 10012 


New York, N.Y. 
Permit No. 7089 

Do you want your short film to play in theatres across the USA? 


The National Endowment for the Arts 
Short Film Showcase, Round IV, a 
program for the distribution of short films 
to commercial theaters, administered by 
the Foundation for Independent Video and 
Film, Inc. (FIVF) 


Each filmmaker whose work is selected 
will receive an honorarium of $3,000 and 
will supervise the 35mm blow-up of his or 
her film. 

Films have included George Griffin's 
Viewmaster, Frank Mouris' Frank Film, 
Eli Noyes' Clay, Sara Petty's Furies, 
James Whitney's Lapis. 

Jurors invited to select films have included 
Mirra Bank, Francis Coppola,' Molly Has- 
kell, Henry Plitt, Michael Schultz, Martin 
Scorsese, Sam Spiegel, Ted Timreck. 

You Are Eligible For This Program 
of High Quality Short Films if: 

• you are an American citizen or perma- 
nent resident 

• your film runs 10 minutes or less 
including title and end credits 

• you own the U.S. theatrical rights and 
have cleared all performance rights 

• your film is not already in 35mm theatri- 
cal distribution 

• your film will qualify for an MPAA rating 
of G or PG 

Entry Instructions: 

Each film submitted for entry must be 

• mounted on a reel 

• shipped in a strapped regulation 
hardboard film case with corner clamps 

• marked with film title and name of 
filmmaker on reel, leader, and shipping 

• sent prepaid and insured (by entrant) 
and must contain a return mailing 
label with postage affixed (stamps 
only) to cover mailing costs plus insur- 
ance (specify class of mail desired) from 
New York. 

No improperly packaged films will 
be accepted. 

Films are submitted at owner's risk. 
Receipt will only be acknowledged if 
entrant encloses either U.S. Postal Form 
#3811 (Return Receipt) (insured or regis- 
tered en route to New York) or a self- 
addressed stamped envelope or card. 

Send Films to: 

Short Film Showcase % FIVF 
625 Broadway, 9th Floor 
New York, NY 10012 

Entry Deadline: 

November 1, 1980 (delivered at FIVF) 


Showcase winners will be notified and all 
other films will be returned by 
February 28. 1981. 

Entry Form: (Enclose With Film) 
I have read and accept the above condi- 
tions and state that I am the principal 
filmmaker for the film entered in my name, 
that I have all rights of publication to this 
film and that the content of the film does 
not infringe upon the rights of anyone. 

(sign here) _ 

City/State . 

Running time _ 

_ Color D B/W D Date completed . 

I learned about SFS through . 

9 organization dedicated to the growth ot independent video and film. 

ndspe ndent 

MAY 1980 

S3 ■*£ ■• js* 

■ i 




MAY 80 

Vol. 3 no. 4 

THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, 
articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence 
we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material to 
THE INDEPENDENT, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, NY, NY 10012. 
If you'd like your material returned to you please enclose a 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 

NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of month 
preceding publication, preferrably earlier. 















Jon Rubin battles Florida mud at Chinsegul Conference 
Photo: Gerald Jones 

STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tonkonow, Assistant Director; Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director; Media Works: Lillian Jimenez, 
Project Director; Bob Wiegand, Executive Producer; Karen Brinkman, 
Project Coordinator; Frances Piatt, Project Coordinator. 



The April 1st AIVF/FIVF Board meeting opened with a report 
on the Independent Feature Project (IFP) and their potential 
affiliation with AIVF/FIVF. IFP's Board has voted unanimously 
to work toward affiliation and has set up a committee for this 
purpose, chaired by Randall Conrad and including Mark 
Berger, Mark Rappaport and Herb E. Smith. FIVF's Board 
nominated a committee to investigate the nature of affiliation 
further, comprised of Alan Jacobs, Pablo Figueroa, Kitty 
Morgan and Jane Morrison. 

An update on the CETA/MEDIA WORKS project followed. 
There was a presentation on the possibilities of FIVF becom- 
ing a Prime Contractor with the Department of Employment of 
the City of New York. Advantages and disadvantages of 
becoming a Prime Contractor and/or remaining a Sub- 
contractor under the auspices of the Cultural Council Founda- 
tion were discussed extensively and a consensus was arrived 
at: FIVF would consider becoming a Prime Contractor pro- 
viding certain conditions were met regarding FIVF's respon- 
sibilities and committments to other community groups, to 
maintaining core services with appropriate personnel, and to 
working for employment for film/video artists. There will be 
further investigation of issues involved and Vince Pinto, ad- 
ministrator for the Cultural Council's CETA Artists Project, 
will be invited to field questions from the Board. 

The next item on the agenda concerned Arden House. A 
discussion of the value of AlVF's participation took place and 
it was agreed that the Executive Director or his representative 
and a minority representative from the Board should attend. 

A recap of the voting procedures for the upcoming Board elec- 
tion followed, with much debate over whether the resolutions 
should be sent out at the same time. This was agreed to. 

Finally, a draft of a letter to the CPB, regarding Lewis Freed- 
man's visit to AIVF, was presented for the Board's response. 
A motion was passed to send a letter stating FIVF's position 
with copies going to the CPB Board. 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, 
and are open to the public. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 
June 10th. It will start promptly at 8:00 pm. Dates and times, however, 
are subject to last minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to con- 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treasurer: 
Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex Officio. Stew Bird; Robert Gard- 
ner, Vice-President; Kathy Kline, Secretary; Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane 
Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, Chairperson. 

Dear Alan: 

We're independents living and working out of Dallas who 
have also been members of AIVF for the past two years. 
Last month we filed suit against public television station 
KERA-TV for withdrawing from an agreement to co-produce 
with us a documentary film about the experiences of 
growing up in a low-income housing project in Dallas. The 
film had already been selected by the station as their 
contribution to a documentary consortium organized by the 
Eastern Educational Television Network. We brought 
$25,000 to the production from a private foundation; KERA 
would provide the zpproximately $30,000 additional funds 
through in-kind services and cash. We had also negotiated 
the rights to everyone's satisfaction. The other details are 
spelled out in the accompanying suit. 

We tried to discuss their sudden and unexpected withdrawal 
and the possibility of alternatives, to no avail. Until they 

broke the contract, our relationship with them has been 
fine. In fact, Allen worked there for four and a half years 
and left amicably. We finally discussed our situation with a 
competent young lawyer here in town who agreed to take 
the case. This all took place at the end of last year, but the 
wheels of American jurisprudence continue to grind slowly, 
despite a willing and honest lawyer. Now that we've 
officially filed suit (as far as we know, we may be the only 
independents who have directly challenged a station in 
court) we could use your guidance, support, and 
suggestions about people, institutions, and media to contact 
who would help us publicize the suit. 

Television Public, and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay 

That WNET has not agreed to air the other films censored 
by Oliver remains shocking and surprising to us. We wish 

to explain to you some of the reasons for our energetic 
support of the other three films. Gays are not merely male, 
not only white and middle-class as the major media often 
describes us. We are Black, Hispanic, Native American, and 
include all ethnic groups within the area of WNET 
broadcast. We are old, young, middle-aged, rich, but poor in 
much larger numbers. 

The film will focus on the lives of Black girls (early teens) 
growing up in the two-story brick projects. Entitled 
BEAUTY IN THE BRICKS, the film will take a positive look 
at people whose living conditions have caused social 
analysts to label them as "sick", with few chances ever "to 
overcome the wretchedness which clouds their existence' ' . 
At the same time we are not making a case for the 
continuation of poverty. The film will show the problems, 
but it will also highlight the strengths and creativity which 
can flourish amid this adversity. By spending many weeks 
with a few girls moving us through their community, we 
hope to be able to shed some light on a group which is 
virtually unknown to people outside their neighborhoods 
but is a very prominent part of the social fabric. 

While we are white, the project began when someone from 
the community came to us about doing a film there. After 
several meetings with her and others from the area, we 
developed a proposal which we then distributed among the 
same interested group. We met to discuss their reactions to 
the material and then drafted another proposal. Everyone 
was finally satisfied with the approach, which incidentally, 
was their suggestion and not ours. This process of including 
community residents is one we intend to follow throughout 
the making of the film. 

So, in the meantime, we are suing KERA and continuing to 
look for the additional funding, a task of no modest 
proportions, as you are well aware. We look forward to help 
from you and the organization. It can get awfully lonely out 
here, especially at times like this. 


Allen Mondell 

Cynthia Mondell 

5215 Homer Street, Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 826-3863 

Jay Iselin, President May 3, 1980 


356 West 58th Street 

New York, New York 10019 

Dear Mr. Iselin, 

We are pleased that Liz Oliver and the policy makers of 
WNET decided to show Jan Oxenberg's A COMEDY IN SIX 
UNNATURAL ACTS on "Independent Focus." We're sure 
that the Lesbian and Gay community is quite pleased to 
have seen it, particularly those organizations and 
individuals who strongly supported the campaign to 
reinstate the film, including the Gay Media Alliance, The 
National Gay Task Force, the Coalition to Make Public 

We are victims of some of the same kinds of health care 
problems described in THE CHICAGO MATERNITY CENTER 
STORY. This has been a year of health crisis within the Gay 
community, but the media, including public television, has 
not served us in this crisis. We are also factory workers and 
share in the concerns and struggles described in FINALLY 
GOT THE NEWS. And we are of African descent, as well as 
other races, and are interested to know more about the 
political situations in Third World Countries as treated in 
P0V0 ORGANIZADO. And finally, many of us, though our 
own specific experiences are not described above, realize 
that Gay oppression comes from the same place as sexism 
and racism. Yet we are fun-loving, theoretical, sexual, and 
proud, though we don't believe it is for these aspects of our 
lives that WNET has reinstated A COMEDY IN SIX 

The exclusion from media of Lesbians and Gays, in all 
aspects of their lives, has meant systematic censorship. 
Your inclusion of one film, no matter how good, on one 
rather unpublicized program in a poor time slot cannot be 
considered a lifting of the ban. More appropriately we view 
it as a hard-fought victory by a community vastly abused by 
the media. An editorial policy that is so exclusionary is not 
a policy of "editing" at all but a defiance of the rights of 
people who license the station and pay many of the bills. 
However, we hope that reinstatement of Oxenberg's film is a 
new, first step towards WNET's interest in the Lesbian and 
Gay community, by actively seeking more programs, more 
funding, and more open Lesbian and Gay men in decision- 
making positions. 

The National Association of Lesbian and Gay Filmmakers 
will continue to press for such access, particularly for 
implementation of the Minority Task Force Report, with 
appropriate additions in relation to Lesbians, Gay men, and 
women. We will continue to work within the Coalition to 
Make to Make Public Television Public along with the Black 
Producers Association, The Puerto Rican Institute for Media 
Advocacy, Women Make Movies, Third World Newsreel, and 
the other member organizations and individuals. 

Sincer Walter Goodman in a letter to the Village Voice 
showed a surprising ignorance about employment practices 
for Lesbians and Gay men, we've enclosed an "Executive 
Order" made by Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New 
York State. The order describes the various ways in which 
you can guarantee the rights of Lesbians and Gay men in 
your employ. 

Sincerely yours, 

The members of the National 

Association of Lesbian and Gay Filmmakers o 









by Gayla Jamison 

Southern independent film is often characterized by 
regional folk arts and ethnographic documentaries. 
Although the Southern mainstream continues to produce 
folksy documentaries, there are a number of artists, often 
overlooked as regional filmmakers, who continue to ex- 
plore the unique qualities of plastic time and film-as- 
material. The strength of Southern avant-garde film was 
exhibited at the Chinsegut Hill Film and Video Confer- 
ence, an annual convocation of Southern avant-garde film 
and video makers held April 3-6. 

Chinsegut Hill is an antebellum estate owned by the 
University of South Florida, located just north of Tampa, 
site of the University. The Tampa Bay area is fertile 
ground for avant-garde filmmaking, since the film faculty 
at the progressive Fine Arts College of the University in- 
cludes Will Hindle and Charles Lyman (Director of the 
Conference) as tenured professors and has hosted such 
noted independents as Scott Bartlett, Jon Rubin, and 
Gunvor Nelson, among others, as visiting instructors. The 
Fine Arts College is also nationally recognized for the 
now-defunct Graphicstudio, with Jasper Johns, Robert 
Rauschenberg and James Rosenquist in residence at the 
creative research facility. 

The 1980 Chinsegut Conference drew over seventy reg- 
istered participants from 10 states (about 10 participants 
were guest artists invited from New York, California, and 
Delaware; the remainder were regional artists), whose 
presentations included nonproscenium and performance 
works as well as personal and structuralist film and video. 

Although most films presented during the Conference 
made no direct reference to the region, several offered 
nontraditional interpretations of the Southern landscape 
and its people. L'ACADIE: AN ALBUM OF 16MM EKTA- 
CHROME SKETCHES, by Robert Russett, is an impres- 
sionistic portrait of Louisiana Acadia country accom- 
plished through the re-photography of random frames of 
original footage accompanied by a persistent and unnerv- 
ing soundtrack of indigenous cicadas. The lyrical imagery 
departs dramatically from Russett's previous pure-form 
and color studies, the most famous of which is NEURON. 
Co-author of Experimental Animation, Russett currently 
teaches at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. 

ALABAMA DEPARTURE, by Peter Bundy and Bryan 
Elsom (presented by Elsom, of South Carolina), is a medi- 
tative collection of static scenes from the Alabama coast 
and countryside, blended with social commentary by a 
grizzled old man. Charles Brown's COMBINATION PLATE 
is an affectionate, simple tribute to a vintage jukebox in a 
crusty South Carolina Sea Island cafe. 

Other regional films of note include ENTHUSIASM, by 
Gordan Ball of North Carolina, a moving portrait of his 
mother's physical decline and death. The filmmaker's 
halting and eloquent narration over family snapshots cre- 

( — Chinsegut Conference Director Charles Lvman Photo: Gerald Jones 

ates a film of haunting intensity. PERSISTENCE OF 
VISION, by Charles Lyman, was inspired by the film- 
maker's rediscovery of the innocence of vision through 
his young son. It refers to Lyman's family, to the early 
films of the Lumiere family, the Charles Manson "family," 
and a textbook explaining "persistence of vision" as a 
physical phenomenon. In LAKE HAVATAMPA REVISITED 
and RECKLESS ABANDON, Nancy Cervenka allows un- 
derexposure and angular late afternoon sunlight to inten- 
sify subtropical lakes and forests. 

Nonproscenium and performance work, especially out- 
door events, are a main emphasis at Chinsegut. Charles 
Lyman opened the Conference with a performance of 
WET WEATHER, a multi-media work created for Five 
Sides, a structure built in a pasture at his nearby farm. The 
piece integrates the natural elements of fire and water, 
several horses tethered in front of spotlights, projections 
of pure light, still images, and film on cloth, screens, and 
mist. Unfortunately, like most outdoor events, WET 
WEATHER depends heavily on favorable weather condi- 
tions, and prevailing winds marred the performance. I 
have been present at performances, however, when the 
ritualistic nature of the event was successfully realized. 

Don Evans, Professor of Art at Vanderbilt University in 
Tennessee, presented several performance works on the 
Estate grounds. A delightful composition for three 
dancers and film features a dancer holding white discs 
onto which the faces of the moon are projected as the 
dancer moves. With assistance from Warren Johnston, 
Evans' new works represent accomplished precision 
which gives greater focus to his verbal and visual wit. 

Another performance work, by New York artist Jon Rubin, 
was achieved after a protracted battle with thick vegeta- 
tion and mud. The work consists of a projection screen 
mounted between two canoes also containing a genera- 
tor, projector, sound system, Rubin, and assistant Ena 
Whisnat. Images of mouths speaking lines such as 
"Where is this? What is this?" floated on a dark lake, 
creating an effect at once whimsical and mysterious 
under a cooperative Florida moon. 

Other guests from outside the region included John 
Hanhardt, Curator of Film and Video at the Whitney 
Museum of American Art, who gave an exhaustive slide 
presentation of video and film installations at the 
Whitney. Chick Strand (California) screened five recent- 
ly completed films, most notably SOFT FICTION, a 
powerful hour-long work which hovers between docu- 
mentary and personal film and is based on remarkably 
intimate anecdotes told to her on camera by several 
women. Jan Aaron presented a work-in-progress, IN- 
TERIOR DESIGNS, which uses animation integrated 
with live action, advancing the technique used in her 
earlier films, IN PLAIN SIGHT and A BRAND NEW DAY. 

Jan Haag, Director of the Independent Filmmakers pro- 
gram at the American Film Institute, spoke at length on 
the grant application review process and the structure 
of the AFI. Ms. Haag also screened three films which 


received AFI funding and were supposedly represen- 
tative of those supported by the AFI. Two of the three, 
dramatic and documentary films, were naive in concep- 
tion and of poor technical quality; the third, an 
animated film, though technically proficient, was pro- 
duced by a filmmaker with obvious commercial inten- 
tions. The films, in other words, did nothing to improve 
the negative image of the AFI held by most indepen- 
dent — especially personal — filmmakers. 

Leandro Katz, a New York artist, presented slides of his 
installations at the Museum of Modern Art as well as 
several films. MOON NOTES was screened following 
Lyman's outdoor performance at the Five Sides struc- 
ture, and this study of clouds passing over the face of 
the moon was extremely successful shown in direct op- 
position to the "original" under the open sky. A less 
successful though ambitious film, EMMA KUNZ, made 
in Super 8 and 16mm, incompletely dramatizes the 
short story by Borges. Katz' imagery is much stronger 
and more compelling than his sense of narrative. 

Performance artist Pat Oleszko gave a wry slide presen- 
tation on her life as a costume/performance artist, 
screened several films inspired by her performances 
(made by David Robinson), and presented several per- 
formances. Two clever works costumed her as three 
crows and half-man/half-woman. A third, however, GET 
YOUR HANDS OFF HER, which featured a thinly- 
disguised striptease as comment on women's exploita- 
tion, proved that satire can be as exploitive as the 

The Chinsegut Conference was organized by Charles 
Lyman, Stan Kozma, Nancy Yasecko, and Bob Gilbert, 
all of Atlantic Productions, Inc. All filmmakers, they felt 

the need to break from the highly regimented 
schedules and simultaneity of events which turn most 
festival and conferences attendees into desperate peo- 
ple. The 1980 poster featured Oscar Bailey's panoramic 
photograph of 1978 participants gathered beneath live 
oaks and Spanish moss and promised "a congenial 
gathering of film/video artists" and the opportunity for 
"healthy interchange among artists". Despite a 
rigorous schedule (which provided for about thirty 
artists to present work), the pastoral atmosphere, the 
opportunity to converse during common meals and 
breaks — everyone lived and ate together — and the 
lazy beauty of the landscape allowed an easy 
camaraderie to develop between conference par- 

The South is a large but cohesive region, and the 
Chinsegut Conference was designed to provide travel 
funds not only for guest artists outside the region but 
for about twenty regional artists. In this way, the Con- 
ference is a true gathering of regional filmmakers. It is 
unusual for a conference of this size to give regional 
artists the same consideration and attention as na- 
tionally recognized artists and still maintain high stan- 
dards. The regult is that the Chinsegut Conference con- 
tributes significantly to the support and development of 
Southern avant-garde film — recognizing its own artists 
by providing them a forum for discussion and screening 
of their work, nourishing imagination with catalytic 
artists from other regions. 

For names and addresses of participants or additional 
information, contact Stan Kozma, 10002 Lola Street, 
Tampa, Florida 33612. 


At KCET/Channel 28 in Los Angeles, a community 
advisory panel established by the station's board 
of directors has recommended after an 11 -month 
study that major changes be made on the board 
itself. KCET's panel, the Community Advisory 
Board (CAB), questioned whether the station's 47 
member board of directors "as presently con- 
stituted" is ideally suited "to deal responsively 
with our concerns and recommendations" in a 
10-page report which contained 21 recommenda- 
tions for improving the station. The CAB, which is 
made up of 26 representatives of various groups 
and geographical areas in southern California, 
stated, "We believe the current board is not suf- 
ficiently broad-based, that it does not adequately 
represent the community in all its diversity. . . . 
We call on the board to consider whether it ought 
to reconstitute itself to insure adequate represen- 
tation for otherwise unrepresented or under- 
represented constituencies." KCET's present 
board is predominantly white, well-educated, 
financially well off and, for the most part, com- 
prised of business executives, university presi- 
dents and bankers. 

The CAB itself was not exempt from criticism. 

They called for a reevaluation of the Community 
Advisory Board, claiming that "some critical com- 
ponents" of the community were not represented 
on it either. 

The focus of the report was on Adequate local 
programming and community relations. Recom- 
mendations were made for KCET to "allocate sub- 
stantially more air time to local programs", to do 
more investigative reporting, cover more local 
cultural events, that it try to broadcast at least 
one original drama and one original documentary 
per month and that the station seek to become 
"an outlet for the controversial, the unconven- 
tional, the unpopular, the voiceless". 

Only a half-hour per day of the normal schedules 
are alloted by KCET for local affairs. This, the 
report said, "is simply inadequate to serve the 
cultural, political and social needs of even the 
large audience segments, to say nothing of the 
needs of small minorities, disadvantaged and un- 
popular groups whose existence and attitudes no 
free society can ignore." And that eloquent a 
statement Public Television stations nationwide 
should not ignore. — J.L.R. 


TUgKMLlL M !(L@« 


"The Big Event of 1980! Second Annual 
National Film Market" 

There have been few press releases and no magazine or 
journal reports on this story. The Educational Film 
Library Association and the Association of Media Pro- 
ducers did not get press releases. Yet the National Film 
Market could be one of the most important events of 
1980 for independent filmmakers. This is not a festival 
you enter; it seems to be almost impossible to get an 
invitation. If the Market Planners have their way, it will 
soon be the only game in town. 


In January 1979, letters went out to many large distribu- 
tion companies: Films Inc., CRM/McGraw-Hill Films, 
Motorola Teleprograms, Inc., Time-Life Multimedia and 
others. The letter on the stationery of the Knoxville- 
Knox County Public Library began, "One of the prob- 
lems of our industry is that our trade shows, exhibits, 
film festivals, etc. are expensive and, in most cases, 
non-productive. Very few, if any, orders are written . . . 
There are now over four hundred (400) film festivals, 
state conferences, and national conferences in the 
United States. All of these organizations, associations, 
etc. come to the distributors of 16mm films for finan- 
cial and physical participation. None of the present 
festivals or conferences provide any immediate or 
direct response to the industry's needs. MOST TREAT 
CEPTED AND LAUDED" (emphasis mine). The follow- 
ing was in caps: "OUR INDUSTRY NEEDS A MARKET- 

This letter went on to talk about the high costs of 
previews, and the need for a marketplace "... where 
buyers (government, schools, libraries, religious 
organizations and other agencies) could attend and 
make purchase decisions . . . This is a national 
marketplace, not a regional exercise. What we need is a 
large number of committed distributors. We already 
have a group of committed distributors enabling us to 
get started ... we are asking for a $200 contribution." 
The letter was signed by Jane Powell of the Knoxville 
Public Library. 

This letter did generate contributions. The original 
Board of Directors included four distributors out of the 
twelve founding members: Phoenix Films, Learning 
Corporation of America, Lucerne Films, Inc. and Bench- 
mark Films. Their names were attached to the copy of 
the letter I eventually received from a well-placed 

The National Film Market was on. A slick brochure was 
sent out to selected buyers of films promising the 
following: "Just about everyone you want to see will be 
there. So, you'll want to add your name to the list." The 


list had 23 distributors on it. Some small companies 
were represented: Benchmark, Billy Budd Films, Bull- 
frog, Wombat, etc., but most of the companies listed 
were the giants of the non-theatrical film industry. 
Where were the New Days? Where were the indepen- 
dent self-distribution companies? The brochure 
described the Market this way: 

"Four days instead of weeks . . . save time and 


"On-the-spot purchase decisions ... it will allow 

you to see films and make purchase decisions 

"Strictly business . . . not to be confused with a 
festival . . . the Market will be conducted in a 
cost-effective professional atmosphere. . ." 
"See the latest releases ... no waiting for 
previews . . . uninterrupted screenings . . . infor- 
mational mini-workshops ..." 
"Look where you're going! Knoxville, Tennessee, 
is the chosen site because of its central location, 
the relative inexpensiveness of accommodations 
. . . compared to cities like New York ..." 

The Film Market Board could have invited independent 
filmmakers to participate as late as the last week of 
May. A Board meeting was held during the American 
Film Festival. Material was handed out to film buyers 
and some distributors. Of course, no material was left 
on Serious Business's or New Day's or Direct Cinema 
Limited's exhibition table. Letters went out to 
distributors in early June. The deadline for the October 
20-24 Market in 1979 was July 1. Two little companies 
heard about the Market and after some difficulty were 
able to get information and attend by splitting a room. 
Some smaller large companies received information in 
an original mailing, but letters asking for more informa- 
tion went unanswered. Once a few of the large com- 
panies had signed up beyond the four founding 
distributors, other large companies and many small 
companies wanted in — for fear that if their com- 
petitors were selling films, they too should be selling 
films. One of the distributors known for his business 
skills was elected by the Board to be treasurer of the 
Market: Heinz Gellus, President of Phoenix Films, Inc. 
Finally, a National Film Market with distributors having 
some control . . . not like most of the other film 

The Film Market set a fee of $250 to be an exhibitor. 
The distribution companies also had to spend $50 to 
$180 a day for a screening room. To keep costs down, 
distributors agreed that "no food or beverage service of 
any kind will be permitted in the screening rooms or 
bedrooms." In addition, the Market published a pro- 


gram that listed the screening times and locations of 
all of the participants. Two companies were allowed to 
split the costs of a room, but they were required to 
show their films for only two days each during the four- 
day Market. I talked to distributors who participated in 
the Market, and most felt it was a success. This year, 
the director of the Market, Stan Pruitt of the Memphis 
City Schools, said that registration for new distributors 
(ones who did not participate last year) will be $2,000 
each for the four days. If two new companies want to 
split a room, the registration will be $1,250 each to 
cover the additional costs of signing and the extra pro- 
gram page they will receive. Unlike last year's fees, this 
fee covers all costs for the Market: screening room, pro- 
jector, chairs, signs, mailings, group entertainment, 
program books. The fee does not cover hotel rooms, 
food and additional entertainment. 

The Film Market in 1980, according to Pruitt, will have 
30 screening rooms in the Memphis Hyatt Regency. To 
my knowledge, no public announcements have been 
made in any of the trades about the reservation 
deadline for distributors. 


Film markets are wonderful ways to sell films. Clearly, 
distributing independent films is becoming proble- 
matic. Preview costs are high. Getting new films of 
outstanding quality is more difficult for all of the large 
distributors. More and more independents are choosing 
to self-distribute their films or to go with newer 
distribution companies more responsive to their needs. 
At last year's American Film Festival, most of the Blue 
and Red Ribbons were won by independent films. 
These Ribbons have traditionally meant a great deal in 
terms of sales for the traditional commercial 
distributors. In any festival where films are pre-selected 
by film users, new releases by distributors (or in- 
dependents) might not be shown — might not win 

awards. Major distributors have used these festivals, 
the American Film Festival in particular, to sell their 
films, acquire new films, and entertain customers from 
out-of-town. With multiple screening rooms, it is not en- 
tirely proper to screen films not selected for festival 
screenings in your hotel suite or in your office. A Film 
Market where the distributor could SELECT the films 
for screening and SELL to customers is clearly 
preferable to a festival in which the films are selected 
by someone else. 

This is a wonderful way to sell films, but independents 
who are self-distributing a few films will not be able to 
play. Smaller companies can ill afford the high fees. 
The National Film Market is going to happen October 
12-16 but only those independent films that are being 
distributed by the major companies will be represented. 
I understand that over $300,000 in orders were written 
at the first Market. How much of a budget will 
customers have left when the small distributors get 
there with their films? How many one-film indepen- 
dents will be shut out because only 30 rooms are avail- 
able? How many film co-ops will not be able to afford 
the cost of participation? With the war chest the Market 
is collecting for promotion and subsidised fees for 
buyers, how many film users will resist the offer to 
come down and buy? 

The National Film Market can be reached for more in- 
formation at the following address: Stan Pruitt, Mem- 
phis City Schools, P.O. Box 11274, Memphis, TN 38111. 
The phone number is (901) 345-4566. Perhaps its board 
might consider letting the AIVF have a room to show 
members' films? Who knows? Last year I wrote and 
called and was finally told in September that there was 
no room; all the screening facilities were booked. I have 
not yet received any written information on the Market 
for this year. 

© 1980 MWB 


TWINS by Charlie Ahearn at AIVF Junel9 

mipqa mmmmmi 



by Pablo Figueroa 

A few years back when Van Peeble's film, Sweet- 
back..., opened, launching Hollywood's short-lived 
discovery of the Black audience, many Black brothers 
and sisters were upset because the film's hero had 
been reared in a whorehouse, and his claim to fame 
was his sexual prowess. The same feeling of discom- 
fort was expressed by many of my Puerto Rican 
brothers and sisters when they saw Miguel Pinero's 
Short Eyes. Many felt that the film glamorized the 
prison population and seemed to say it was all right to 
be in prison. The first Cuban-American film, El Super, 
was also disliked by some Cubans because the hero 
was a loser at the lowest rung of the economic and 
social ladder. These people felt that there were many 
economically successful individuals among Cubans 
and that any of their stories would have portrayed the 
proper image of the Cuban economic struggle in the 
United States. 

In each one of these cases everyone felt that the films 
stereotyped the minorities they portrayed and, more im- 
portantly, that the films did not show a "positive 
image" of the minorities in question. Among some of 
the critics the thought was expressed that since there 
are not many films or TV programs produced annually 
portraying a balanced image of minorities in all walks 
of life, the few films that do get produced should show 
the positive aspects of our various cultures. The logic 
behind such an ideal should be obvious to all. Films are 
not only works of art, they are also a very effective tool 
to change and/or shape public opinion. As a matter of 
fact the media (films, television, radio, print) have the 
power to create images of groups that can positively or 
negatively affect their social and economic well-being 
in this society. 

Therefore, if a filmmaker cares for and is loyal to his 
racial or ethnic group, it behooves him to make films 
about his group that show a "positive image". That 
seems clear enough! But, as we shall see, there is a 
catch-22 here that beclouds this clear argument with 
the spectre of mind control. 

* * * * 

What brought these rambling thoughts to my head 
were two recent incidents. One was the reaction of a 
colleague, whom I respect very much, to a number of 
synopses of some films I am presently writing. The 
other incident was the Corporation of Public Broad- 
casting's caveat concerning the Public Broadcasting 
System's handling of recently apportioned funds for 
minority programs for public television. 

Let's deal with the second incident first. The Corpora- 
tion of Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a federal agency 
empowered to distribute public monies to the public 

television system, while the Public Broadcasting 
System (PBS) is, among other things, a private club of 
the public television stations. In creating this club, the 
public television stations have created a system, or net- 
work, that allows them to produce programs whose 
costs are shared by all. They do this through a co- 
operative market fair, wherein the individual stations 
may propose program ideas. These proposals are then 
put in a pot and all the stations vote for those they like. 
In so doing they not only help defray the costs but also 
promise to air the programs chosen. Once the PBS pro- 
gram fair runs its course, CPB grants its monies to 
match those of the stations. Now, it must be under- 
stood that the people who vote in the program market 
fair are the station managers of the various par- 
ticipating TV stations. These people are generally 
White-anglo-saxon-upper-middle-class-males and sup- 
posedly straight. 

Recently CPB set aside one million dollars for the pro- 
duction of new minority programs. This, in the world 
of TV, is peanuts, but it was a beginning. PBS then 
made a special minority program market fair and asked 
the TV stations to submit proposals. Now, since the 
number of minority producers (the people who originate 
program proposals) working in public TV stations is 
very, very low, a group of minority individuals pressed 
the Board of CPB to issue a strong caveat to PBS to 
assure that the proposals selected conform to the 
guidelines of what constitutes a minority program as 
stipulated in the Report of the latest Minority Task 
Force which CPB had created and recently had dis- 
banded. That Minority Task Force Report is very explicit 
in the areas of stereotyping and positive/negative im- 
age making. PBS responded to all of this by asking the 
directors of the proposed programs whether or not their 
programs would stereotype or negatively image the per- 
sons of minority groups. Supposedly, those that 
answered affirmatively were ignominiously kicked out 
of the program market fair. Thus this was another vic- 
tory for social justice in the long historical struggle of 
this country. The fact that the people voting for these 
programs were unanimously White-anglo-saxon-upper- 
middle-class-males was totally overlooked. Therefore, 
one can also say that this was a victory for the preser- 
vation of the White-anglo-saxon-upper-middle-class- 
male establishment of public TV. 

The other incident that inspired these desultory 
remarks was the reaction to a proposal of mine for a 
series on the Hispanic family by my dear friend and col- 
league. In reading the film synopses my friend felt that 
they perpetuated some stereotypes and generally 
showed a somewhat negative image of our people. This 
reaction shocked the hell out of me, but it got me think- 
ing. 9 


I have always liked the thought that the purpose of art 
is to mirror nature, to show us to ourselves. I also think 
that a work of art can be judged great or defective ac- 
cording to how faithfully it reflects our nature. Under- 
stand that I am not making here an argument for 
realism and against any of the abstract forms of art. 
What we often call realism is art that reflects our 
beliefs or ideologies and not our reality, i.e. the na- 
tionalistic art of Nazi Germany, the ideological art of 
Communist Russia and the popular art of Capitalist 
United States. In other words, just as it is possible to 
make a mirror that distorts reality, it is possible to use 
art forms to authenticate or validate our mental pic- 
tures or our simplified and fixed opinions about a 
group, a race or an issue. Such uses of art are not 
works of art, as defined above, for they reflect opinions, 
ideologies, ideas and not nature. The purpose of such 
works is to stereotype. And those stereotypes are not 
necessarily negative, by the way. Indeed in many in- 
stances they are "positive images" of their subjects. 
Often the subject in these instances is the privileged 
class of the society. For example, in the United States 
the popular TV image of the White-anglo-saxon-upper- 
middle-class-male Johnny is of heroic proportions, full 
of justice, kindness and strength. This is the same 
"positive image" Russia has of her Ivan and Germany 
had of her Siegfried. 

It should be obvious that power is the reason why 
governments perpetuate the "positive image" of the 
privileged class. If they can make everyone in the socie- 
ty, including those that slave at the bottom of the 
economic ladder, believe and accept that "positive im- 
age," there would never be insurrections or any other 
form of competition to their power. For no decent 
human being would ever take up arms against a just, 
kind and strong hero. And those that do are evil, un- 
godly degenerates or terrorists. 

It must also be said that, as part of this political use of 
art, the powers that be must also create "negative 
images" of those that slave at the bottom. And if the 
leaders can make the slaves accept those "negative im- 
ages," then without opposition the society will be able 
to perpetuate the status quo. The governing group will 
have taken control of the mental faculties of all sectors 
of the society. 

In the long run it is this mental control which is the goal 
of all this image-making. Furthermore, it must be clear 
that it is not only the "negative images" that control. 
"Positive images" do this as well. In a society all the 
Ivans, Siegfrieds and Johnnies that believe the official 
"positive images" of themselves have a fixed and simp- 
lified opinion of themselves and will never be moved to 
analyze or understand their own nature. And more im- 
portantly, they will never question the human sacrifice 
their privileged position demands. 

In this less than perfect world, should minorities, as 
their lot improves in this society, use art to create 
"positive images" of themselves in order to counter the 
"negative images" created by those in power? A tempt- 
ing proposition indeed, but I am trying to show that this 
is a catch-22. The creation of images hide us from our- 
selves. It channels our mental faculties along pre- 
scribed lines. And to me it is that mental channelling or 
control which defines the social state of powerless- 
ness. That is, a powerless group is one whose mental 
activities are controlled. And since I agree with the 
Constitution that power should reside with the people, I 
cannot support any kind of image-making, negative or 

I found it sad when the group of powerless minorities 
pressed the Board of CPB to support minority programs 
with "positive images." Of course, CPB jumped at the 
opportunity. No smart government would ignore an op- 
portunity to perpetuate their privilege. 

My friend, who did not like my film synopses, felt that 
in general the stories were negative and tended to 
stereotype our people. If they do this, then, by my 
definition, they would not be works of art; they would 
not be faithful mirrors reflecting our true nature. I only 
hope that my friend was exaggerating somewhat and 
that what was meant was that the stories were not 
"positive" enough for my friend's liking. After all, I work 
very hard to make films that have neither positive or 
negative images, but rather are faithful reflections of 
our people's reality. 


Masako Endo(center)& ArnieWong during a TV 
interview with Bernice Chow 


by Lillian Jimenez 

In the last issue of THE INDEPENDENT, I wrote about 
the community opposition to Fort Apache: The Bronx, a 
Time & Life Feature film. Since that time, the lawsuit 
against Time & Life was thrown out of court on grounds 
that the plaintiffs', The Committee Against Fort Apache 
(CAFA), case was built on ideological innuendo and 
speculative connotation, and that CAFA could not 
establish that fact that wrongful conduct and ir- 
reparable harm had been done. I met with one of the 
producers, and videotaped the CAFA demonstration 
against the film in the South Bronx. Production was 
temporarily halted by demonstrators at the Joint 
Disease Hospital. 

My meeting with Martin Richards, one of the producers 
of the film, was arranged by a correspondent who in- 
tended to write an article on the basis of the dialogue. I 
was given the film script in advance of the meeting and 
a "neutral" location was found, where only Mr. 
Richards, myself and the correspondent were to meet. 
However, upon my arrival, I was greeted by a group of 
several people, which included a Puerto Rican public 
relations person, the technical advisor to the film — 
also Puerto Rican, an associate producer and another 
Public Relations person; all this quite by accident. At 
the inception of our dialogue, Mr. Richards set an in- 
tensely emotional tone by explaining how upset and 
personally indignant he was with being considered a 
racist. He was particularly scornful of the protestors, 
characterizing them as malcontents who either wished 
to get jobs on the film or were interested in controlling 
everything that went on in the South Bronx. He was 
quick to add that the charges leveled at him were 
ridiculous and that he was well-intentioned; he felt that 
this film would educate a vast number of people about 
the blight and conditions of the South Bronx. 

My dilemma as a media activist and a Puerto Rican 
were clear. This man, who represents a multi-national 
corporation which virtually controls an international 
production and distribution network, is creating a pro- 
duct that is racist and slanderous. Yet, he feels that he 

is accurately mirroring the reality of Puerto Ricans. In 
actuality, I never doubted his belief in his vision. One of 
the problems lies in the fact that his premise is in- 
herently racist. For him, the overwhelming majority of 
Puerto Ricans are pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts, 
gang members, listless welfare recipients . . . because 
of their environment. 

What Mr. Richards is unable to see is that the over- 
whelming majority of Puerto Ricans are workers who 
are concentrated in the service and operative industries 
of this country. There are countless thousands who at- 
tend the City Universities of New York alone. Yet, for 
Mr. Richards and the other producers of Fort Apache, 
these people are not the norm but the exception. 

After having worked on a film for two years now on the 
unionization of household workers living and working in 
the South Bronx, I thought that the issues raised in this 
controversy would be of importance to the membership 
of AIVF. A number of questions remain unanswered in 
our independent community: what responsibilities do 
filmmakers have to their subjects? If a community is 
upset by its media portrayal, should the filmmaker 
change the film to suit them? 

I'm not sure how many people have already come 
across this situation, or ever will, but I would most cer- 
tainly like to hear about it. My feelings are that film- 
makers and videomakers have a responsibility to the 
subjects they choose to document — not only during 
production but particularly during pre-production. A 
conscientious relationship has to be nurtured and 
maintained in order to insure an accurate portrayal. 
Artistic freedom is one thing — slander is another. 

Author's Note: A diverse group of Black artists and 
community people have organized in Los Angeles 
against an NBC mini-series entitled Beulahland and a 
similar group of Asian-Americans is currently organiz- 
ing a Zoetrope remake of Charlie Chan. It appears that 
Third World communities will not tolerate the continua- 
tion of stereotyping in films or television. BRAVO! 



by Robert A. Haller 

Robert A. Haller is the new Executive Director of 
Anthology Film Archives. After a year and a half of dor- 
mancy, Anthology's film screening facilities reopened 
in March and are once again serving the independent 
community. Mr. Haller is also the Chair of the National 
Conference of Media Arts Centers. 

Anthology Film Archives is going to be ten years old 
this fall. It is now engaged in one of the most ambitious 
expansion projects in the field of independent cinema. 
During the next eighteen months, Anthology will raise 
about two and a half million dollars — for the renova- 
tion of the Second Avenue Courthouse as its new home 
as a cinema museum, and for the expansion of its 
public exhibition programs as it moves into the new 
premises. Anthology is simultaneously creating a long- 
term funding structure to provide an operating endow- 
ment for the museum, and a grants-to-film-and-video- 
makers program. 

After ten years of functioning in New York City, it has 
become increasingly clear that Anthology needs to 
become more than the exhibition/preservation/research 
center it was conceived as in 1970. The importance of 
these original functions has grown in the interim, but 
so too has the need for touring packages of films, for 
expanding publications, and for a new kind of grants 
program that can focus support on avant-garde film 
artists, who are too often overlooked by existing 
government agency grant systems. 

This multi-part expansion project is unprecedented; it 
is also the logical consequence of present develop- 
ments in the field of independent cinema. No insti- 
tution has ever tried to do all of these things at once, 
yet many are achieving such individual goals such as 
owning their own building (Film-in-the-Cities in Min- 
neapolis), or creating endowments (Northwest Film 
Study Center in Portland; Pittsburgh Film-Makers Inc.). 
That Anthology is doing all these at once is a conse- 
quence of a good building suddenly becoming available 
at the same time that the institution was about to grow 
beyond its original parameters. 

Ten years have also demonstrated that interest in 
avant-garde cinema is increasing steadily in museums, 
universities, media centers and among the general 
public. More and more filmmakers are depositing at 
Anthology papers, film outtakes and other materials 
relating to their work. Some have also designated An- 
thology as the receiver of their estate. These factors 
made it clear that Anthology needs more space, greater 
resources, to perform the tasks others require of it, as 
well as those it had already determined as necessary. 

Thus we addressed the immediate objective of con- 
structing a new home for Anthology. Last fall the 
former Second Avenue Courthouse was purchased 
from the City of New York for $50,000. Since then, archi- 
tects and designers have been producing plans for a 
building specifically organized as a film/video museum. 
It now includes sub-zero vaults for film preservation, a 
library four times as large as Anthology's present facili- 
ty, and three exhibition theaters (one for film, one for 
video, and a multi-purpose space for holding con- 
ferences, screening films, videotaping, multimedia per- 
formance, and other functions). Special film and video 
playback facilities will permit detailed study of in- 
dividual works on Steenbeck film editors and similar 
video machines. 

The opening of this museum, in the fall of 1981, will 
focus new attention on the field of independent 
cinema. It has often been pointed out that the maturity 
of this field, like any other, will be measured by its in- 
stitutions. As long as we operate out of rented head- 
quarters on shoestring budgets, we will not be taken 
seriously by the general public. Last year at the Min- 
newaska Conference, Cliff Frazier summed it up well 
when he decried the "poverty program mentality" that 
so many filmmakers and cinema administrators accept 
as a 'given'. The opening of a museum specifically 
devoted to independent cinema, as part of the broad 
spectrum that includes social purpose films, informa- 
tional and documentary film, and ethnocentric cinema, 
will mark a new stage in the evolution of American in- 
dependent film culture. 

Since its founding, Anthology has often been requested 
to assemble traveling exhibitions of American avant- 
garde cinema. Exhibitions in Paris and Switzerland 
have been followed early this year by a show called The 
Pleasure Dome at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. 1 
During the same period Anthology has become a major 
base for lecture tours and screenings in the United 
States. From its unique collections of personal cinema, 
P. Adams Sitney has presented programs on Joseph 
Cornell, and the Maya Deren Collective 2 has screened 
the unfinished films of Maya Deren. Supported by 
catalogs and publications, these programs are a 
distinctive, unique and well-received contribution to the 
wider understanding of American independent film. 

As a corollary of this growth — of Anthology and of the 
field — Anthology is now also involved in the process 
of building a more stable, supportive funding base — 
with public membership, corporate sponsors, and, 
ultimately, an endowment that will fund both operating 
expenses and a grants program for film and video- 


All of these developments are emerging from a growth 
process that can be seen nationally. They are likely to 
be repeated by other film and video institutions in New 
York (several are already contemplating similar moves 
towards greater stability). The 1980's are going to be 
our decade. 

'The Pleasure Dome, shown from Feb. 16 to April 4, involved the 
repeated screenings of 90 films by Anger, Brakhage, Breer, Baillie, Con- 
ner, Broughton, O'Neill, Gottheim, Cornell, Kubelka, Fisher, Menken, 
Frampton, Gehr, Hill, Jacobs, Lando, Mekas, Sharits, Smith, Snow, 
Sonbert, Noren, and Rainer. An illustrated 120-page English-Swedish 
catalog was also produced. 

'Volume One of the three-volume Legend of Maya Deren is now at press 
and will be available this fall. 

Architect's rendering of interior of the Courthouse, showing main entrance and 
repertory cinema on the first floor, and offices, projection booth, multi-purpose 
theater and entrance hall on the second floor. 




by Sam McElfresh 

The Premise 

Some independents — Stan Brakhage comes immediately to 
mind — believe so strongly in the "priority of the visual" 
(because they assume that sound can be evoked in the visuals 
and in editing, and that a sound track would unfairly guide and 
control vision) that they opt for the production of "silent" 
work. This article is not for such artists; rather, it is addressed 
to the vast majority of "audiovisual" video and filmmakers 
who, at one time or another, contemplate wedding their visual 
images to the recorded music of other artists. My article, then, 
examines the one aspect of music rights most often ap- 
plicable to video and film production; the use by the indepen- 
dent of previously-recorded musical material for sound track 
material for his own work. I will combine a how-to approach 
(useful in dealing with specific problems raised by copyright 
regulations and restrictions) with more general information 
regarding basic issues of copyright law. 

The Quest 

It was clear from the outset that this topic was so highly 
specialized and elaborate as to have spawned a profession of 
experts — entertainment lawyers — who bring to mind high 
priests, alone capable of understanding the field. I spoke to 
journalists who have researched similar articles only to aban- 
don them when confronted with the tangled issue of music 
copyright. I was warned that everyone who participated in the 
creation of a piece of recorded music — including its com- 
poser, producer, vocalists, musicians, conductors, arrangers, 
orchestrators, and copyists — held rights to it which must be 
obtained; and that the laws governing those rights, originally 
drafted in 1909, had recently been so radically rewritten (to ac- 
commodate technological innovations — television, cable 
television, synchronization with film, offset printing, long- 
playing records, Xerox reprography, etc.) that at present, 
several sets of overlapping rules were in effect. I even came 
across a statement by then-Supreme Court Justice Fortas 
stating that settlement of music copyright disputes called 
"not for the judgement of Solomon but for the dexterity of 

Undaunted, I forged ahead, scurrying like Josef K. in Kafka/ 
Welles' The Trial down nightmare corridors of law offices, 
poking microphones into the faces of pontificating attorneys, 
poring over volumes of the most precise yet obscure prose im- 
aginable. To the extent that this topic could be researched by 
a layman, then, it was researched and written. 

So Why Bother? 

Near the end of one long interview, the lawyer to whom I was 
speaking sighed, turned to gaze out his highrise picture win- 
dow, then leaned toward me and asked, in effect, "Why bother 
to write on this subject for those people?" Independents, I 
was informed, were small fish — so small, in fact, that there 
were circumstances in which big companies couldn't care 
less about copyright infringement. This was not to say that 
filmmakers wouldn't be liable for heavy prosecution if 
copyright holders suddenly decided they did care, but such 
companies sometimes preferred having their music reach a 


wider audience without reimbursement to negotiating the 
terms of its use; independents should keep this in mind, I was 
told, and "balance their risks". 

It's no secret that the music and film industries have been 
guilty of corporate cuddling for some time, and that by now 
they're barely distinguishable. All the major film companies 
have music company affiliations: Warners, Universal, Fox and 
Columbia have their own record companies and music pub- 
lishing firms, while Paramount, United Artists, and MGM have 
music publishing subsidiaries. Huge amounts of money ride 
on movie music deals: no wonder independents are viewed as 
too small to worry about! Cut off from the symbiotic relation- 
ship that benefits big record producers and big film studios, 
independents often find their channels for legitimate use of 
appropriate music limited, difficult, even blocked, unlike their 
counterparts within the film industry. 

Many hurdles, then, may have to be cleared before a recording 
becomes available for legitimate use as a video or film score. 
The more one understands of the process, it is hoped, the bet- 
ter the chance of obtaining reasonable authorization; at the 
very least, one should know enough of the jargon to talk with 
music executives and lawyers. 

The Terminology 

Briefly, then, certain basic terms should be defined. Copyright 
is an intangible property right (as opposed to the right to con- 
trol physical property) and literally means "the right to copy": 
the creator of an original work holds a copyright on it, which 
entitles him to be compensated for his effort. Copyright, 
though, protects an artist's idea rather than the physical prop- 
erty through which that idea is made tangible. Of course, that 
idea can't be protected unless it takes a form (is fixed), 
although it makes no difference what that form is; it can be 
fixed in words, numbers, notes, sounds or pictures, embodied 
in a physical object in written, printed, photographic, 
sculptural, punched, magnetic or any other stable form, or 
capable of perception directly or by means of any machine or 
device "now known or later developed". 
In the case of music, this means that before an author can 
have his work copyrighted, his composition has to be "written 
or recorded in words or any kind of visible notation ... on a 
phonograph disc, on a sound film track, on magnetic tape, or 
on punch cards". 

The composer holds a copyright on his composition; he also 
holds the exclusive right to the production of copies of his 
idea. Those who express that idea (musicians/producer who 
create the record), however, hold rights to the use of the 
record. What this means to the filmmaker is that s/he needs 
two sets of authorizations in order to use a piece of recorded 
music: 1) synchronization and performing rights, granted by 
the composer through his publisher; 2) recording rights, 
granted by the musicians/producer through their record 

Until recently, only the composer was protected: there was no 
copyright for the mechanical reproductions themselves 


(records, tapes, etc.) since "sound recordings" were not con- 
sidered to be "original works of authorship". It was not until 
1972 that copyright law began covering the duplication of 
phonograph records, and the 1976 Copyright Act extended 
music licensing to retransmission on cable TV, as well as per- 
formances on jukeboxes and over public broadcasting. 

Present copyright law, then, affords federal protection for 
"sound recordings". At least in part, this is a response to a 
shift in music industry practice: in 1909, sheet music sales 
were the major source of revenue. Today, such sales are 
minimal; big business lies in the sale of phonorecords, not 
sheet music. (Phonorecord is a term used to cover physical 
objects, such as records and tapes.) Thus now, sound record- 
ings are themselves protected, themselves considered to be 
"original works of authorship" rather than simply copies of 
the musical composition contained in them. A second set of 
definitions then is in order. 

A copyrightable sound recording is an original work of author- 
ship made up of musical or spoken sounds fixed in forms such 
as phonorecords, open-reel tapes, cartridges, and cassettes. 
(Motion picture soundtracks do not fall into this category.) 
What is being defined here is that the copyrightable "sound 
recording", an intangible aggregate of sounds, is distinct from 
the "phonorecord", on which the sounds are fixed. 

Who, then, can be said to be the author or copyright owner in 
such a case? The 1976 Act doesn't fix authorship of a sound 
recording, leaving that to bargaining between the various 
people responsible for the originality of the recording. Since 
authorship can be claimed by anyone making an original con- 
tribution, and since only an author can be regarded as 
copyright owner, "sound recording" authorship is either 
claimed exclusively by the artists performing on the recording 
or claimed jointly between those performing artists and the 
producer responsible (through his for-hire employees) for cap- 
turing and electronically processing the sounds, and compil- 
ing and editing them to make the final sound recording. In any 
case, the term of copyright protection for a sound recording 
endures for the life of the natural record producer (as opposed 
to a corporate record producer) and for an additional fifty 
years following his death. 

In either case, a filmmaker wishing to record material for his 
own soundtrack from a sound recording must, as the first of 
two steps, contact the record company (e.g., CBS Records) to 
obtain recording rights for their record. 

In order for a "sound recording" to be eligible for copyright, 
then, it must be "fixed", (meaning that all sounds can be pro- 
duced on a final master recording). In order for it to be pro- 
tected under copyright statues, phonorecords of it 1) must 
display a copyright notice — the symbol "P", the year date of 
first publication of the sound recording, and the name of the 
sound recording's copyright owner — on their surface, label, 
or container; 2) must be "published" (sold to the public or of- 
fered to wholesalers or retailers for ultimate sale); and, after 
publication, 3) must be registered with the Register of 
Copyright. Once this has been done, the copyright owner has 
exclusive rights of reproduction (the right to duplicate the 
sound recording in the form of phonorecords, or of copies of 
motion pictures and other audiovisual works that recapture 
the actual sounds fixed in the recording), of publication 
(distribution of phonorecords to the public), and of the 
preparation of derivative works based on the copyrighted 
sound recording. By consulting the copyright notice displayed 
on a phonorecord, one can determine who holds "recording 
rights" to a given sound recording. 

The Licenses 

Copyright owners, then, hold the right to license the reproduc- 
tion of their compositions and their distribution to the public. 
This right includes both the issuance of phonograph records, 
tapes, electrical transcriptions and audiotapes, and the use of 
a composition for synchronization with motion pictures, 
television films and videotapes. The former group of rights, 
called mechanicals (mechanical-reproduction rights), are ob- 
tained with a mechanical-rights license, while the latter group, 
synchronization rights (the right to record the music in syn- 
chronization with images in a film), are secured by obtaining a 
synchronization license. Of the two, the independent need 
only concern himself with the latter: the copyright owner must 
be contacted and synchronization rights secured. In addition, 
performance rights are obtained at the same time, since a 
work of music contained in a sound track is thought to be 
"performed" whenever the soundtrack is heard publicly. Thus 
a performance license is necessary. 

Rarely, however, does one deal directly with the copyright 
owner; more commonly, one negotiates with the owner's 
representative, called the copyright proprietor, who is most 
often the copyright owner's music publisher. Once the com- 
poser puts his musical piece into a publisher's catalogue, that 
publisher owns and controls the song for the composer. The 
publisher is responsible for selling the composer's work and 
collecting royalties on it, a percentage of which are returned 
to the composer. 

Such publishers, though, place yet another person between 
filmmaker and copyright owner: many music publishers work 
through agents like The Harry Fox Agency, an agent-trustee 
(with local offices at 110 E. 59th Street, NY NY 10022) which 
administers mechanical and synchronization licenses on 
behalf of the over 3,500 music publishers who use Fox ser- 
vices in exchange for fees. 

Dealing with The Harry Fox Agency involves submitting to 
them a list of the record titles you wish to use in your film, 
along with specific information regarding the purpose and 
character of their intended use, e.g. whether yours will be a 
theatric or non-theatric film, intended for worldwide, U.S. or 
local distribution. The agency contacts the copyright owners 
who quote prices which will vary depending on the proposed 
use of both the music in the film and of the film itself. This 
quotation is passed on to the filmmaker in writing. If the 
agency should not represent the relevant publisher, it will ad- 
vise you to contact that publisher directly. 

There may be problems in dealing with publishers: a publisher 
may refuse to issue a synchronization or performing license 
or attempt to limit the scope of the license granted. He may, 
for example, agree to license only theatrical distribution to 
movie theatres, reserving the right to ask for future fees 
should the film be exhibited later over free or pay TV, should 
copies of the film be sold or rented on videocassette, and so 
on. The filmmaker, then, should press for the most broad and 
comprehensive licenses possible; this may cause negotia- 
tions to drag on before mutual satisfaction is obtained. 

There are two important exceptions to this negotiated licens- 
ing procedure which independents should know about. First, 
synchronization rights for projects intended for non- 
commercial public broadcast are subject to compulsory 
license. Under such license, available only if your work is for 
distribution via public broadcasting, it is compulsory for a 
copyright owner to grant a license (he can't turn down your re- 
quest to use his music), provided he is paid a fee established 



by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal: for three years of use, one 
must pay fifty dollars per composition for a contemporary 
piece; or for a classical piece, make payments based on a 
sliding scale determined by the length of the composition. 

Second, it is possible to go directly to the music publisher for 
synchronization rights. Once there, you should explain your 
project and request gratis clearance, the waiving of fees to 
certain projects at the discretion of the copyright owner. 
Should they be willing to grant you such clearance, you will be 
referred to an agency for a fee quotation. Going directly to the 
publisher is not a way to "cut out a middleman" in order to 
save money. Rather, it is an option for those who feel they can 
make a case for the fact that their upcoming work will be so 
clearly of a non-profit nature that a copyright holder would 
have no reason to expect a share in its returns. Even non- 
theatrical films, of course, often realize enough of a profit so 
that copyright holders expect a share of it, although fees 
asked for a non-theatric synchronization license are substan- 
tially less (approximately $200 per song) than those asked for 
theatrical films (approximately $2,000 per song). 

Should these rights not be obtained, and your unauthorized 
work be discovered by a music copyright holder, he can do a 
number of things, including bringing suit against you — 
copyright infringers face fines from $250 to $50,000 and/or 

two years imprisonment — or agreeing to license your work 
after the fact, but charging triple the usual fee. 


Because of recent copyright legislation, which seeks to 
achieve an equitable balance between creator and user, an 
artist's creative work as embodied in a sound recording is now 
more secure than ever before. Indeed, certain paths to "cut- 
rate" use of pre-recorded music now seem blocked. 

This article only scratches the surface. The problems one may 
encounter when applying for authorization are compounded 
by the fact that the present law is so new as to be virtually 
untested; only time and court cases will test its validity and 
clarify its rulings. 

I would like to thank the following friends and experts in the 
field for helping me research and prepare this text: Carolyn 
Calette (London Records), Leonard Easter and Marc Toberoff 
(Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts), Eliot Evans (Fordham Univer- 
sity), Joe Horowitz (The New York Times), Gerry Pallor (Young 
Filmakers) and Theodora Zaven (Broadcast Music, Inc.). 
Special thanks go to Martin Raskin (patent and copyright at- 
torney), Janet Cutler (Montclair State College) and Marianne 
Flaherty (Harry Fox Agency), for their patience, encourage- 
ment and informed assistance. 


Once again this year, the Foundation for Independent 
Video and Film will host the selection of U.S. entries for 
the Mannheim International Film Festival. The selec- 
tion process is scheduled to begin in early July. The 
festival, in its 29th year, awards well over $10,000 in 
prizes. It will take place October 6-11, 1980. 

The selection will be made by a festival-appointed 
panel which includes Fee Vaillant, Director of the 
Mannheim Festival; Marc N. Weiss, former Chairperson 
of the FIVF Festivals Committee; and others. 

Last year, 10 films were selected for competition and 
information programs. Several won cash prizes. In addi- 
tion, the cost of film shipment was covered by the 
festival, directors were invited to attend at the festival's 
expense (not including travel), and several TV sales 
were made. 


that date cannot be screened. 

4. Send films to: Mannheim Selection, FIVF Festivals 
Project, 625 Broadway — 9th floor, New York NY 

5. Include the following with the print (and make sure 
the name of the film is on each item): 

a) A check or money order for return postage and 
service fee, made out to FIVF FESTIVALS PROJ- 
ECT. Under 60 min.: $12. 60-90 min.: $15. Over 90 
min.: $18. Members of AIVF, WAFL and BF/VF 
may deduct $3. 

b) A synopsis of the film. 

c) Major credits, completion date, running time (in 
minutes), length (in feet). 

d) Any reviews or publicity materials you think might 
be helpful. 

Filmmakers interested in submitting their films for 
selection should follow these guidelines carefully: 

1. Eligible films: 16mm and 35mm, more than 35 
minutes long. First features, documentaries, short 
fiction completed since January 1979 (do not resub- 
mit films already submitted last year). 

2. Films must be clearly marked on the outside of the 
shipping case with a) name of film, b) name and ad- 
dress of shipper, c) insurance value. 

3. Films must arrive by July 7. Any film arriving after 

All films will be returned in early August. You wil 

notified about the selections by mail. 


7. The shipping of selected films from New York to 
Mannheim will take place in early September. Films 
will be shipped round-trip as a group at the festival's 
expense. The FIVF will require an additional modest 
service and handling fee at this time. 

Any questions should be directed to Leslie Tonkonow 
at FIVF, (212) 473-3400. 

*7^£ (fauWM 


GETTING THE WORD OUT . . . Many thanks: to Richard 
Goldstein for his splendid dissection of WNET Channel 
13 in his three-part series in the Village Voice. And to: 
Bob Brewin for his outstanding articles on NET for the 
Soho Weekly News. Their work in publicizing and 
analyzing the situation at Channel 13 has been in- 
valuable in the fight to open the station up to all the 
people of New York City — not just to corporate in- 

A BIG ELECTION YEAR . . . There was lots of bustling 
about on the afternoon of May 2nd as AIVF/FIVF Board 
election ballots were tallied and a healthy count con- 
firmed. We received over twice the number of ballots 
this year than last. The results: Eric Breitbart, Robert 
Gardner, Jessie Maple, Kitty Morgan (re-elected for a 
second term), Marc Weiss and Jack Willis were chosen 
for the Board of Directors. The new Board elected of- 
ficers at its first meeting on May 13th, choosing Jane 
Morrison once again (emphatically) as President; 
Robert Gardner as Vice-President; Eric Breitbart was 
cajoled into becoming Treasurer; Jack Willis gratefully 
voted in as Chairperson and Kathy Kline, Secretary. 

MAKING GOOD . . . AIVF member Allen Coulter's film, 
THE HOBBS CASE, has been winning awards and at- 
tention all across the country: first prize for Dramatic 
Fiction at Atlanta International Film Festival, prize win- 
ner at Ann Arbor and showcased at Filmex in Los 
Angeles .... Italian TV has acquired the 1980 rights to 
SAINTS IN CHINATOWN, a satire by Sol Rubin and 
award-winner at Cannes. The film is being distributed in 
the U.S. pay TV circuit by ICAP . . . which brings us to 
the following "official" announcement. 

ICAP (Independent Cinema Artists & Producers) has 

moved its offices to 625 Broadway, 9th floor, New York, 
NY 10012, which also houses AlVF/FIVF's new offices. 
Their new phone number is (212) 533-9180 and the 
number for ICAP's Public Television Project is (212) 

MAKING WAVES ... Ira Wohl's much deserved 
Academy Award for BEST BOY upset some Hollywood 
folks. First, following Wohl's somewhat lengthy but 
tender and sincere acceptance speech, William Shatner 
(a.k.a. Captain Kirk) attempted a feeble, nasty joke: "I'm 
glad he doesn't have any more relatives. We might be 
here all night." A few days later, big-time producer 
Howard Koch complained about the award on an L.A. 
radio show. "I don't know if we should give Oscars to 
those people who come from nowhere. We don't know 
them. What are they doing up there? What are short 
subjects and documentaries, and what do they have to 
do with the movie business?" Koch, former president of 
the Motion Picture Academy and now a member of the 
Academy's board of directors, continued in this vein, 
adding, "Our whole idea is to give Oscars to people in 
our business ... I don't know if they're [those people] 

part of what we are." Wohl's response, "Koch should 
know better." 

Freedman, CPB Program Fund Director, has selected 
two men from Public TV as Associate Directors in his 
Program Fund unit. John Wicklein, from station 
WLIW/21 in Garden City, will be responsible for 
developing and implementing news and public affairs 
programming policy at CPB. Donald Marbury, from 
WQED in Pittsburgh, will be in charge of cultural pro- 
gramming policy. Both men have had interesting 
histories with Public TV: the former, John Wicklein, 
having been general manager of WRVR (one of NYC's 
progressive radio stations) and news director at WNET, 
among other things; while Mr. Marbury was executive 
producer and host of BLACK HORIZONS. The indepen- 
dent community hopes that the kind of diversity Mr. 
Freedman seems to be encouraging on his staff at this 
time will inspire more of the same at the policy level. 

EVENTS . . . The National Association of Lesbian and 
Gay Filmmakers will be holding a fund-raising cocktail 
party on Monday, June 23rd at the New Amsterdam 
Cafe at 6:00 p.m. The New Amsterdam Cafe is located 

at 284 West 12th Street Women's Interart Center is 

hosting a festival of film and video screenings in June 
(552 W. 53rd St.), where the artists will be present to 
discuss different approaches to narrative, documentary 
and experimental work. A symposium with critics Amy 
Taubin, Ann Sargent-Wooster, Noell Carroll and festival 
artists including Anita Thatcher, Jon Alpert, Keiko 
Tsuno, Tomiyo Sasaki and Mary Lucier will also take 
place. Call (212) 246-1050 for details concerning "The 
Moving Image Film and Video Festival". 

A: , 

Upstate Report pant II 


In December 1979, Ann Volkes, Gerry Pallor and I received a 
grant from The Kitchen's Media Bureau for the purposes of 
collecting and publishing first-hand information about the 
media arts centers of New York State outside New York City. 
Part I of our findings, covering Media Study, WXXI, Portable 
Channel and Synapse, was printed in the March issue of THE 
INDEPENDENT; the second and final part follows. A more 
detailed report will be available from FIVF in the near future. 


328 East State Street 

Ithaca, NY 14850 

(607) 272-1596 

Contact: Philip and Gunilla Mallory Jones 

Picturesque Ithaca, perched on a hillside at the foot of 
Cayuga Lake, is known to most people as the home of 
Cornell University. But there's video magic afoot 
downtown: the Ithaca Video Projects — production aid 
for professional video artists, and the prestigious 
Ithaca Video Festival. A large, airy, carpeted studio with 
a fine mountain view is located within a short walk of 
Ithaca's commercial center, upstairs from a well- 
equipped arts supply store. 

IVP's %" cassette editing system can be rented at a 
rate of $50/day. 24-hour access is available; and the ten- 
sion of a long, grueling editing session can be 
alleviated by a round or two at the ping-pong table. The 
latter amenity typifies Phil and Gunilla's warm, informal 
style and personalized concern for their clients. 

In the past, the Production Aid program has mainly 
served local cultural organizations, on a commission 
basis, but clients from outside the Finger Lakes region 
and even out-of-state are actively being sought. If a pro- 
posal is particularly interesting and lacks sufficient 
funding, services — concept development, % " portable 
production equipment, crew, supplies and/or rough 
editing — may be provided gratis. Phil and Gunilla 
often work with performing artists, and they look for- 
ward to expanding their studio space to accommodate 
dance and theatre companies. 


180 Front Street 

Owego, NY 13827 

(607) 687-1423 

Contact: Sherry Miller, Ralph Hocking 

Owego (not to be confused with Oswego) is a tiny, 
sleepy town on the big, sleepy Susquehanna. Ex- 
perimental TV Center moved here from Binghamton, 22 
miles to the east, less than a year ago. The space is 
upstairs from a row of stores, with rear windows 
overlooking the river. It was not yet fully renovated at 
the time of our visit, but its considerable potential as a 
performance and exhibition space is gradually being 
developed. busy future as cable programmers. -ig 

k — THIRD AVENUE, by Jon Alport and Keiko Tsuno at Womens Interart Center (see pg 17) 

The emphasis at ETC is on image processing, and 
much activity continues in spite of the unfinished 
rooms. In fact, demand is so high that booking 6 
months in advance is recommended, and 4 weeks' 
notice of cancellations required. Users pay a $10 annual 
membership fee and a $5 daily charge. 

This very reasonable rate provides access to a mind- 
boggling array of hardware: b/w cameras for live 
shooting and rescanning pretaped material, colorizers, 
elaborately interfaced audio and video synthesizers, 
analog/digital conversion systems . . . The list grows 
daily as new technology is incorporated. ETC receives 
research grants to design image processing equipment, 
and their engineers are very excited about the potential 
applications of silicon chips. 

As a user, you will be trained in the operation of ETC's 
equipment, and then left alone. You retain complete 
control over your project and rights to the finished 
work; the Center only requires that you donate one 
copy to their tape library. 


120 Tinker Street 

Woodstock, NY 12498 

(914) 679-7739 

Contact: Nancy Cain, Bart Friedman 

The Videofreex (of Spaghetti City Video Manual fame) 
have recently left their longtime home, a farm in 
Lanesville, for the comparative bustle of Tinker Street, 
Woodstock's main drag. This town combines the 
sophistication of an established art colony with bucolic 
Catskill surroundings — with a plethora of galleries, 
craft shops, restaurants and a highly-regarded summer 
theatre within walking distance of Media Bus. 

The new headquarters is a cozy old wood-paneled 
house with a small exhibition gallery. Since Woodstock 
is inundated with tourists on weekends, especially in 
the summer, weekdays are probably the best time to 
savor the laid-back working environment and Bart and 
Nancy's amiable company. The facility includes both 
Vz" and 3 A" editing systems, character generator, proc 
amp and scope, turntables, audiocassette recorder, 
mixer, slide projector, and 16mm projector with fader. 
Special editing packages can be arranged in advance. 

Media Bus loans Vz" portable video equipment, with 
$10,000 worth of liability insurance, mainly to local 
artists and arts organizations. They also produce tapes, 
especially of performances, and are preparing a catalog 
of these for distribution. If a hoped-for NTIA grant 
materializes, cablevision will soon return to Woodstock 
after a 3-year hiatus, and the Freex are gearing up for a 



253 Bayville Avenue 

Bayville, NY 11709 

(516) 628-8585 

Contact: Michael Rothbard, Kathie Bodily 

From Manhattan, it's about 1 hour and $6 via Long 
Island Railroad (Oyster Bay station) and taxi to Bayville, 
a quiet North Shore town. Down the road from the traf- 
fic light is the Post Office, and right nearby, an 
unassuming storefront connecting with a converted 
showroom. The surprisingly large interior space houses 

The focal point of IMAC's production and exhibition ac- 
tivity is a well laid-out, visually unobstructed, high- 
ceilinged 45' x 50' studio. It is equipped with 2 color 
cameras that produce an electronically clean image; a 

6-channel audio mixer, turntable and tape decks; ade- 
quate lighting; and in the near future, Marlay flooring 
for dance performances. IMAC rents the studio for $25/ 
hour, and produces cultural programming for cable and 
public TV, with an emphasis on jazz and "new music". 
These concerts are usually open to the public, as are 
the screenings and multi-media, graphics and photog- 
raphy exhibitions held in the studio. They encourage in- 
dependents to submit films and tapes for possible 

IMAC frequently offers workshops, from one-day 
seminars to 10-week courses, to teach technical and 
production skills. Other services include 3 A" control 
track editing at $20/hour; 3 A " color location production, 
$400/day with crew; and technical consultations at $10/ 


The North Carolina Independent Film and Video 
Association held their first meeting since organizing at 
the University of North Carolina at Greensboro April 26. 
The organization's purpose is to support and encourage 
independent film and video in the state and develop ex- 
hibition and distribution outlets for independent work. 

About fifty filmmakers from throughout the state at- 
tended to plan future programs, to hear speakers ad- 
dressing various issues with impact on independents, 
and to view regionally produced films. The most signifi- 
cant issue addressed was the re-organization of the 
state public television system into the North Carolina 
Center for Public Television. John Dunlop, who will 
direct the Center, spoke at length on the independent 
producer as a "great American resource . . . some of 
the few free voices existing in this country", and the 
cost-effectiveness of working with independents. He 
encouraged the NCIFVA to become a strong advocate 
as guidelines are formed for the new Center and to 
become aware of and involved with the CPB mandate to 
work with independents. 

Other speakers included Bill Arnold from the North 
Carolina Film Office of the state Department of Com- 
merce, who promised that the development of commer- 
cial location productions drawn from New York and the 
West Coast would increase employment opportunities 
for North Carolina filmmakers. As AIVF regional 
representative, I spoke of the importance of becoming 
informed on a national level, especially on such issues 
as the imminent CPB funding to independents. I was 
also one of an eclectic panel of independent film- 
makers and critics who discussed their vision as in- 
dependents and the role the NCIFVA could play in ad- 
vocacy and development. 

The organization's main goal at present is to maintain 
communication between its widely dispersed member- 
ship. Even at this early stage the group is in touch with 
technical expertise and resources throughout the state 
as well as informed about the political climate for in- 
dependent production. Independents considering work- 
ing in the state should contact Gary Richman, Presi- 
dent, P.O. Box 14, Winston-Salem, NC 27102, or call 

(919) 967-71 1 3. Gay la Jamison 


by Sol Rubin 

How would you like to study film and video for only 
FILM AND VIDEO by Tom Schroeppel attempts to 
reduce the four-year school calendar into one hour of 
reading, depending upon your speed and orientation ap- 
titude. A cheerful oasis in the engulfing inflation is this 
king-size 8V2 x 11 " paperback. In its second edition, the 
volume is filled with simple, effective drawings that aid 
and clarify the matters which some blackboard 
scholars belabor and complicate. The reason for the 
ease of reading is this: Tom is an active, independent 
pro who always comes to the point speedily. The type- 
writer-style of the text makes for smooth study by 
students of film. The highlight of this manual is the 

section about COMPOSITION, either overlooked entire- 
ly by others or flooded with psychological nomen- 
clature where even Freud would fumble. Eleven 
chapters are dedicated to this gentler portion of the 
camera with effective art work. The filmmaker-author 
employs a column system with "right" and "wrong" 
to attain meaningful results in the cinema rectangle. 
Was this sensitive awareness influenced by Tom 
Schroeppel's pictorial Floridian environs? Or did his 
European studies bring out the best of the continent? 

To obtain a copy of this sub-low-budget book, send 
$6.70 to Tom Schroeppel, P.O. Box 521110, Miami, 
Florida 33152 and allow two weeks for delivery. 



Artist grants program will award up to 
$2,000 for 8mm, video, & short 16mm 
films by emerging film or video artists. 
The program is designed to aid those 
producers who are not yet profes- 
sionals, seeking to develop their film 
making abilities. Eligibility is open to all 
film and video producers interested in 
making an artistic and cinematic con- 
tribution relevant to the field of 
Hispanic productions and programming. 
Application forms are available from 
Oblate College of the Southwest, 
Emerging Artist Program, 285 Oblate 
Drive, San Antonio TX 78216. Deadline 
for applying is June 30. (The staff of San 
Antonio CineFestival of Oblate College 
is available to assist in preparing ap- 
plication forms.) 

R. G. PHOTOGRAPHIC grants up to 
50% of costs of materials, lab work, 
equipment, facilities & consulting work 
for Super-8 projects. Funding based on 
need & quality of proposal. Contact R. 
G. Photographic Inc., 1511 Jericho Turn- 
pike, New Hyde Park NY 11040. 

PRODUCTION AID available: Proposals 
for arts-related productions reviewed on 
continuous basis. Will commit re- 
sources & work closely with artists from 
conception through production, & pro- 
vide production costs, equipment & per- 
sonnel for selected projects. Write 
Ithaca Video Projects, 328 East State 
St., Ithaca NY 14850. 

ARTS deadlines for organizational 
grants include aid to Film/Video Exhibi- 
tion, June 2; & Services to the Field, 
June 16. For complete listing of all pro- 
grams & deadlines, request the Guide to 
Programs from the Information Office, 
NEA, 7th floor West Wing, 2401 E St. 
NW, Washington DC 20506. 

June 30 for projects to begin after Jan. 
1, 1981 which "inform the general 
public, designers & decision-makers 
about the value & practice of design, the 
impact of design decisions, & the rela- 
tionship between design & human 
behavior." Matching grants up to 
$50,000 will be considered. Contact 

made in US, & recipient must be US 
citizen or permanent resident. Grants 
range from $500 to $10,000. For applica- 
tion write IFP, Section N, American Film 
Institute, 501 Doheny Rd., Beverly Hills 
CA 90210. 

facilities available. Fully equipped 
rooms, 24-hour sound transfers from 
Va " to 16mm mag, narration recording, 
extensive sound effects library, inter- 
lock screening room available. Long- 
term Moviola rental in tri-state area, 3 
month minimum. Cinetudes Film Pro- 
ductions Ltd., 377 Broadway, NY NY 
10013, (212) 966-4600. 

LECTORS: INCINE, the Nicaraguan Film 
Institute, seeks donations of fiction & 
documentary, 16/35mm, old & new films 
for distribution throughout Nicaragua, 
for the INCINE library, & for filmmaker 
training. Tax-deductible. Write 
Nicaragua Communicates, PO Box 612, 
Cathedral Station, NY NY 10025. 

painting, sculpture, graphics, video, 
film, photography, poetry, multi-media, 
choreography, fiction, playwriting or 
music composition may apply until June 
2 for approximately 200 grants of $3,500 
to $10,000 from the Creative Artists 
Public Service Fellowship Program. 
Forms available from Albany League of 
Arts, Artpark, Catskill Center for 
Photography, Cultural Resources Coun- 
cil of Syracuse & Onondaga County, 
Huntington Arts Council, Lake Placid 
School of Art, Roberson Center for the 
Arts & Sciences, Visual Studies Work- 
shop, & local arts councils; or send a 
self-addressed post card to Applications 
Dept., CAPS, 250 West 57 St., NY NY 

Works, Inc. will locate stock footage for 
your next production. Access to exten- 
sive stock footage by government agen- 
cies, associations etc. Complete ser- 
vices: research, previewing, reproduc- 
tion & delivery. We locate still pictures 
too. Free brochure. Media Works, Inc., 
1301 20 St. NW, #417, Washington DC 
20036, (202) 466-3646. 


interest-free or low interest funding 
sources available to artists & art 
organizations. $2.50 plus postage. FILM 
SERVICE PROFILES, compiled by Kay 
Salz, is a directory of organizations of- 
fering services to independent film- 

makers & film users, including com- 
prehensive descriptions of 57 national & 
local nonprofit organizations & govern- 
ment agencies which offer funds, ex- 
hibition possibilities or other forms of 
assistance. $5.00; discount available on 
bulk orders. Both available from Center 
for Arts Information, 625 Broadway, NY 
NY 10012, (212) 677-7548. 

White, provides guidance for nonprofit 
organizations on obtaining support from 
government, foundation & corporate 
sources. Also covers library resources, 
professional associations, seminars, 
workshops & periodical publications. 
$19.50 from Plenum Publishing Corp., 
227 West 17 St., NY NY 10011, (212) 

FACTFILES UPDATED: New revisions of 
the following reference booklets are 
now available for $3 each ($2 for AFI 
members), prepaid only: Film & Televi- 
sion Periodicals in English; Careers in 
Film & Television; Film/Video Festivals 
& Awards; Guide to Classroom Use of 
Film; Women & Film/Television; In- 
dependent Film & Video; Movie & TV 
Nostalgia; Film Music; Animation; Third 
World Cinema; Film/Television: a 
Research Guide; & Film/Television: 
Grants, Scholarships, Special Programs. 
Write NES Publications, American Film 
Institute, Kennedy Center, Washington 
DC 20566. 


FOR SALE: Sony VO-3800 portable 
videocassette recorder. Audio AGC 
defeat modification. Well maintained. 
$1,300. For more info call (212) 866-0606. 

FOR SALE: 2 NV-3082 Panasonic Porta- 
paks + AC adaptor — $750; $850 for 
newer model. 2 Panasonic editing decks 
— NV-3130, $700; NV-3020, $200. Con- 
tact Downtown Community TV Center, 
87 Lafayette St., NY NY, (212) 966-4510. 

FOR SALE: Sony Portapak & camera, 
b/w, complete with RF unit & battery. 
Good shape: one owner. $600 firm. Con- 
tact Tobe Carey, Willow Mixed Media, 
PO Box 194, Glenford NY 12433, (914) 

FOR SALE: Bolex sync motor, Rex-4 & 
on with battery pack/charger. Good 
running shape, $325. 4 gang syn- 
chronizer, 16mm, with 3 sound heads & 
amplifier. Good shape, $325. Contact 
Alec McCallum, Salina Star Rt., Boulder 
CO 80302, (303) 443-3879. gl 


FOR SALE: Flatbed Moviola 6-plate. 
M-86 with torque motor control panel. 
Mint condition, $7,000. Call (212) 

FOR SALE: Sony 1610 video camera, 
3800, Akai cc 150 color camera, 10mm 
Switar lens 1.6. Contact G. D. Nugent, 
1078 Third Ave., NY NY 10021, (212) 

FOR RENT: Complete editing facilities 
including 6-plate Steenbeck & sound 
transfer equipment. Contact G. D. 
Nugent, 1078 Third Ave., NY NY 10021, 
(212) 486-9020. 

FOR RENT: Sony 1640 color camera/ 
4800 color deck; Sony 1600 color 
camera/3800 color deck; b/w Sony 3400. 
Crew available. Call Jeff, (212) 233-5851. 


Film Seminar, June 1-6 at Arden House, 
Harriman NY. The Advantages of Diver- 
sity will focus on works created by 
ethnic minorities. The 5 co-program 
directors, who will preview & select 
films & tapes from their own minority 
groups, are: Jaime Barrios — Puerto 
Rico & the Third World; Alfred Guzetti 
— White & Other Ethnic Minorities; 
George P. Horse Capture — Native 
American; Madison D. Lacy, Jr. — Black; 
and Adan Medrano — Chicano. Moder- 
ated by James Blue. Contact Jaime Bar- 
rios, Program Director, 777 UN Plaza, 
8th floor, NY NY 10017, (212) 682-0852. 

SERIES: Cinematography, Lighting & 
Film Production — June 7-15 with Owen 
Roizman, ASC; Aug. 31-Sept. 7 with 
William Fraker, ASC. $350 each. Com- 
bine informal technical lectures, loca- 
tion shooting assignments, screenings, 
critiques & interaction with fellow film- 
makers. Field exercises involve tests, 
lighting setups, camera placement & 
movement, diffusion & filtration, push- 
ing & flashing to control saturation, & 
establishing moods & periods through 
these controls. Steadicam & Camera — 
June 16-20 with Garrett Brown. $400. In- 
cludes demonstrations & lectures on 
use, techniques, maintenance, & poten- 
tial of the Steadicam & Panaglide; & ac- 
tual "in-harness" experience. Par- 
ticipants will "suit-up" on a schedule 
similar to actual production, walk 
through complicated & demanding 
shots, & learn to handle equipment & 
master techniques. Enrollment restrict- 
ed to working professional filmmakers. 
Advanced workshops require sound 
understanding of equipment & pro- 
duction techniques. Enrollment limited 


to 60, on first-come basis. For more info 
& application, contact The Maine 
Photographic Workshop, Rockport ME 
04856, (207) 236-8581. 

DUCTION Conference: Saturday, June 
14, 9 am-4 pm, Beverly Wilshire Hotel, 
9500 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills CA. 
Topics include sources of finance & 
revenue, securities aspects, film devel- 
opment, business aspects & distribution 
& marketing. $95 fee. Contact Depart- 
ment of Business & Management, UCLA 
Extension, PO Box 24902, Los Angeles 
CA 90024, (213)825-7031. 

CORRECTION: The 3rd annual anthro- 
pological film seminar will be held June 
23-August 15. It will be taught by Jean 
Rouch, one of the major figures in visual 
anthro. He will be joined by Emilie de 
Brigard and eminent guests such as 
Ricky Leacock, John Marshall and 
George Stoney, and Jean-Pierre 
Beauviala, who developed the light- 
weight Aaton cameras. This overview of 
the history, theory and practice of an- 
thropological film will include screen- 
ings of many films never before seen in 
the U.S. Students are encouraged to 
bring their own films & tapes. Graduate 
& undergrad. credit will be offered. For 
catalogue & application, contact Har- 
vard Summer School, 20 Garden St., 
Cambridge MA 02138, (617) 495-2921; for 
greater detail on course content, con- 
tact Kitty Morgan, who is coordinating 
the course, c/o Carpenter Center for the 
Visual Arts, Harvard University, 24 Quin- 
cy St., Cambridge MA 02138, (617) 

DU ART SEMINAR will compare Super 
16mm blowup to 35mm on a large 
screen. An experienced feature film 
crew was used to photograph several 
dramatic scenes simultaneously in both 
Super 16 and 35mm color negative. 
From this 35mm and Super 16 footage, 
35mm release prints were prepared. The 
film demonstration will be followed by 
Q. & A. period. Seminar screenings 
scheduled at the Magno Review Theatre, 
MGM Bldg., Main Floor, 1350 Avenue of 
the Americas, NY NY on Monday, June 2 
and Tuesday, June 3, at 3:00, 5:00, & 
6:30. Call Ann Reilly at (212) PL 7-4580 to 
reserve seats. Wine & cheese served. 

MEDIA ARTS: June 15-July 4, Hampshire 
College. 3-week courses: Filmmaking 
Workshop with Bestor Cram & Charles 
Meyer; Animation Workshop with 
Robert Breer & Sandy Moore; Screen- 
writing with Frank Daniel. 1-week 
courses: Documentary Photography 
Workshop with Jerome Liebling; 
Photography Workshop with Helen 

Levitt; History of Photography with 
Marvin Hoshino; Color Photography 
with Elaine Mayes; Preservation, Con- 
servation & Restoration of Photographic 
Materials with Robert Lyons; New 
Technologies: the Blending of Film, 
Video & Computers with Steven 
Gregory; New Technologies: Computer 
Graphics & Digital Television with 
Steven Gregory; New Technologies: 
Computer Graphics & Digital Television 
Workshop with Paul Pangaro; Issues of 
Technology in the 1980's with Benjamin 
Campaign, Forrest Chisman, Harold F. 
Edgerton, Richard Leacock, Alfred Pan- 
discio & Sonja Ellingson Gillespie; 
Issues of Anthropological Film with 
Richard Leacock, John Marshall, Jean 
Rouch & Herbert Di Gioia; A History of 
Media Technology with Eric Martin; Pro- 
ducing Network News with Robert 
"Shad" Northshield; ENG and Beyond: 
Television Production Workshop with 
Midge Mackenzie; & Cooking with 
Artists with Lynne Larson, Frank Daniel, 
Richard Leacock & Ondine. Grad/under- 
grad credit available. For more info con- 
tact Summer Institute on the Media 
Arts, Hampshire College, Amherst MA 
01002, (413) 549-6061 before May 16. 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN, 
June 3-7, will feature workshops in f/v 
production, analysis & programming; 
screenings of award-winning films; & 
seminars with program guests. $40 fee 
for students & faculty, $50 all others. 
Contact Sinking Creek Film Celebration, 
c/o Dean James Sandlin, Sarratt Center, 
Vanderbilt U., Nashville TN 37240, (615) 


Video festival will select one film & one 
tape in each of 4 categories — artistic 
achievement, community service, docu- 
mentary, treatment of subject — for 
broadcast on Vermont ETV & inclusion 
in a traveling exhibition. For deadlines & 
guidelines contact Tom Borrup, Festival 
Director, Image Coop, 18 Langdon St., 
Montpelier VT 05602, (802) 229-4508: 

BALTIMORE AREA film & videomakers 
are invited to participate in a competi- 
tion to be sponsored in May by the 
Baltimore County Public Library. Cate- 
gories include Video Art/Experimental, 
Social Satire/Spoof, Narrative/ 
Documentary, Video Drama, Best High 
School Production. Awards May 22, 
Towson Branch, Baltimore Public 
Library, 320 York Rd., Baltimore MD; ex- 
hibition June 5-6, School 33 Art Gallery, 
1427 Light St., Baltimore. For details call 
(301) 296-8500. 


SINKING CREEK Film Celebration's 
Student/Independent Film Competition 
will be held at Vanderbilt University, 
Nashville TN June 3-7. $5,000 in cash 
awards & production grant; deadline 
May 3. Contact Sinking Creek Film 
Celebration, Creekside Farm, Rt. 8, 
Greeneville TN 37743, (615) 683-6524. 

TRICKFILM/CHICAGO! 80 is a noncom- 
petitive festival of animated & special 
effects films to be held Aug. 15-24. For 
more info write The Film Center, Art In- 
stitute of Chicago, Michigan at Adams, 
Chicago IL 60603. 

CINEMA DIFFERENT: the 16th Festival 
International du Jeune Cinema, to be 
held in Hyeres, Cote d'Azur, France, 
June 23-30, is seeking American entries. 
A festival representative will be in New 
York May 12-18 to screen films at Millen- 
nium, 66 East 4 St., NY NY 10003. Film- 
makers whose works are selected for in- 
clusion in the festival will be reimbursed 
for travel expenses & eligible for 10,000 
francs in prizes. Send films to Millen- 
nium or contact Andy Sichel, 539 Se- 
cond Ave., NY NY 10016, (212) MU 


Center for Film & Video is in the initial 
stages of developing an outlet for non- 
exclusive distribution of independent 
film & video works, utilizing the media 
resources and mailing list of the Center. 
For information contact ACFV, PO Box 
388, Athens OH 45701, (614) 594-5138. 

NUKE NEWS: Films, slide shows & 
videotapes needed for comprehensive 
guide to "atomic" & energy issue media. 
Please send all information immediately 
to Wendy Zheutlin, 2931 Piedmont Ave., 
Berkeley CA 94705. 

FLINT INSTITUTE of Arts is seeking %" 
videocassettes from Michigan artists for 
exhibition on a continuing basis. Con- 
tact Jean Hagman, FIA, 1120 East 
Kearsley, Flint Ml 48503, (313) 234-1695. 

EROTIC SALAD: Independent producer 
seeks 16/35mm erotic shorts, from 1 to 
20 minutes in length. Compilation film 
will be released nationwide, shown at 
Cannes and Italy's MIFED Festival for 
potential worldwide sales. Producers of 
shorts receive percentage of all film 
rentals & sales; also screen credit. Con- 
tact Ken Gaul, Vulcan Productions, Inc., 
1105 First Ave., suite 14, NY NY 10021, 
(212) 758-7146 or 582-9133. 

CINE is a nonprofit organization that 
selects independent films for interna- 
tional festivals. Selection is done by 
regional juries. For more info contact 

CINE, 1201 16 St. NW, Washington DC 
20036, (202)785-1136. 

ACCESS ATLANTA, a nonprofit 
organization promoting public access & 
independent video & film programming 
on cable TV, seeks %" videocassettes 
for weekly series on Tuesdays, 5-6 pm 
on Georgia Cablevision. To offer pro- 
gram suggestions or submit tapes, con- 
tact Access Atlanta Inc., PO Box 5289, 
Atlanta GA 30307, (404) 874-7235. 

ducers & distributors of films for educa- 
tional & television market, seeks 16mm 
educational shorts. Contact Bill Mokin 
at (212) 757-4868 or write Arthur Mokin 
Productions Inc., 17 West 60 St., NY NY 

ICAP DISTRIBUTES independent film & 
video to cable TV & returns 75% of pay- 
ment received from cablecasting to the 
producer. Especially interested in short 
shorts, & films for children & teenagers. 
Send descriptions, promo material to 
ICAP, 625 Broadway, NY NY 10012, (212) 


the Arts/Institute of Film & Television 
has 3 openings in its undergrad pro- 
gram: Assistant Professor of Film 
Animation (MFA required), Assistant 
Professor of Film (MFA), & Assistant 
Professor of Television & Video (MFA, 
MA or MS). Applicants should have con- 
siderable professional experience in 
their field & teaching practice at a major 
institution in a program of film, anima- 
tion &/orTV production. Submit resume, 
references & salary history to Haig P. 
Manoogian, Head, Undergraduate Film 
& Television Dept., School of the Arts, 
NYU, 51 West 4 St., NY NY 10003. 

GAL/GUY FRIDAY: to apprentice with all 
aspects of ongoing cable interview 
series, Women Make News. PBS is in- 
terested in this program. Carfare reim- 
bursed. Phone 7-9 pm, (201) 947-4808. 

School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 
Write Camille J. Cook, Director, Film 
Center, School of the Art Institute, Co- 
lumbus & Jackson, Chicago IL 60603. 

& 1 in video, will be awarded June 1980. 
Write before May 30 to Dr. Gerald 
O'Grady, Director, Center for Media 
Study, 101 Wende Hall, SUNY at Buffalo, 
Buffalo NY 14214. 

tive for Living Cinema, to coordinate 
Collective's activities with individual 
program directors & Executive Commit- 

tee of Board of Directors. Includes com- 
plete administrative responsibility for all 
fiscal matters, public relations & na- 
tional level representation. Qualifica- 
tions include business & management 
skills, working knowledge of indepen- 
dent film community, & a sense of 
humor. Send resume & 2 recommenda- 
tions to Renee Shafransky, CFLC, 52 
White St., NY NY 10013. 

FILM TECHNICIANS — gaffer, grips, 
sound, assistant camera, makeup & pro- 
duction assistants — needed for low- 
budget AFI student film. Shooting in NY 
5/22-6/2, weekends, nights & some davs. 
Good experience, no pay. Expenses. 
Contact Trudi Baldwin, 354 East 91 St., 
NY NY 10028, (212) 369-8635. 

SOUNDPERSON with Nagra 4.2L 
available for work. Contact G. D. 
Nugent, 1078 Third Ave., NY NY 10021, 
(212) 486-9020. 

Film position open at University of 
South Carolina. Professional ex- 
perience, expertise in Super-8 & 16mm 
required. Contact Dr. A. Porter McLaurin, 
Chair, Dept. of Media Arts, USC, Colum- 
bia, SC 29208. 

editor willing to volunteer time to gain 
experience in 16mm editing. Contact 
Susan Wagner, (212) 431-5443. 

personnel with professional attitudes 
needed for upcoming film work. Only 
those with sincere devotion to cinema 
need apply. % " video editor also needed 
for other work. Send resume or call 
soon: Jan Peterson, 16 East 96 St., NY 
NY 10028, (212) TR 6-0560. 

perienced in 16mm theatrical & doc- 
umentary productions. Contact Igor 
Sunara, (212) 249-0416. 

FILM EDITOR: American Film Institute 
funded feature about 2 woman come- 
dians needs experienced editor to col- 
laborate on final structuring of material 
shot over last 2 years. Consists of verite 
footage, commercials, videotape, home 
movies, animation, stills, stock footage, 
narration. Salary negotiable. Call 
Katherine at (212) 226-7559. 


Quick, clean cut, low prices. B/w, color, 
negative or reversal. Call Pola Rapaport, 
(212) 431-3773. 

EDITING TIME available on 6-plate 
Steenbeck, May & June. 2 to 3 days or 
nights a week, $10/session. Call 
Roberta, (212) 874-7255. «3 

New York, N.Y. 10012 


New York, N.Y. 
Permit No. 7089 







Vol. 3 no.5 


THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

We welcome your response in the form of letters, reviews, 
articles or suggestions. As time and space are of the essence 
we can't guarantee publication. Please send your material to 
THE INDEPENDENT, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, NY, NY 10012. 
If you'd like your material returned to you please enclose a 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 

NOTE: All submissions to newsletter due by the 15th of month 
preceding publication, preferrably earlier. 


By Gerald O'Grady 


By Lewis Freedman 

OUTER SPACE By John Schwartz 8 

TRAVEL NOTES By Dee Dee Halleck 10 

BUSINESS By Mitchell Block 12 



By Stevenson Palfi 


STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tonkonow, Assistant Director, Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director; Media Works: Lillian Jimenez, 
Project Director; Bob Wiegand, Executive Producer; Karen Brinkman, 
Project Coordinator; Frances Piatt, Project Coordinator. 


The June 10 AIVF/FIVF Board meeting opened with a report by 
representatives from a coalition of individual independent film and 
video makers on the NAMAC meeting in Boulder, Colorado. They asked 
AIVF to reconsider its position concerning NAMAC's policy of restrict- 
ing full membership to organizations. It was decided that any revoca- 
tion of AlVF's position would require extensive debate, and the ques- 
tion was tabled for the next full Board meeting. AlVF's representative at 
NAMAC, Alan Jacobs, gave his report on the conference, stating that he 
had resigned from the NAMAC Steering Committee and will not be run- 
ning for the NAMAC Board. 

The second item was a report on the expansion of the Short Film 
Showcase into new markets such as disc and home video. The question 
was raised as to whether this expansion would conflict with services 
already provided by ICAP. It was recommended that a proposal be sub- 
mitted to NEA with the stipulation that it not compete with other FIVF 
proposals, and that an agreement be worked out with the ICAP Board. 
Discussion ensued concerning whether it was appropriate for FIVF to 
market films, and on alternatives to the proposed expansion of the pro- 
gram. A motion was made to ask NEA for a 1-month extension of the ap- 
plication deadline, so that these issues could be reconsidered at the 
next Board meeting and Alan Mitosky's (Project Administrator) proposal 
could be reworked. An amendment was added specifying that FIVF 
would negotiate with ICAP. The motion passed. 

Also on the agenda was a report on a NYSCA-funded tour of New York 
State Public TV stations to discuss ways to increase independent pro- 
gramming. Due to time limitations, the report was tabled for the next 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treasurer; 
Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex Officio. Stew Bird; Robert Gard- 
ner, Vice-President; Kathy Kline, Secretary; Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane 
Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, Chairperson. 

BOARD MEETINGS are held on the first Tuesday of each month at AIVF, 625 Broad- 
way, 9th Floor at 8:00 pm. Dates and times, however, are subject to last minute 
changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to confirm. The next meeting of the Board 
will take place in September. 


625 Broadway 

New York, NY 10012 

To the Editor, 

I have much interest in the success of AIVF. Being a 
former public TV producer with KPBS-TV in San Diego, and 
now a struggling independent, I welcome the attempts of 
AIVF to open up public television to public input. I also 
welcome theidea of a supportive community of indepen- 
dents working collectively for what they could not achieve 
individually. I would also welcome the opportunity to 
know more about AIVF, perhaps leading to membership. 

Thank you, 
Dennis Cramer 
San Diego, CA 




All of our agonizing labor and creative effort is for nothing 
because our films are vanishing. I am not referring to the 
terrible problem of black and white film deterioration with 
which many of you are already familiar, but to something 
more immediate — FADING COLOR. After only a few years 
the color in our films will be irretrievably lost. The problem 
of color fading in film is beyond the crisis point. We must 
confront it now — it can no longer be ignored. 

Your past support in voicing concern over this problem is 
greatly appreciated but it is no longer enough. Merely 
recognizing the fact that color film fades is useless. We must 
act now or the films we make in the 1980' s will be subjected 
to the same indiscriminate destruction as all those made in 
the past forty years. Working with film stock that is 
guaranteed to deteriorate in a matter of months is insulting 
and insane. We have no choice but to take action to correct 
this situation which is absolutely intolerable. 

Eastman Kodak will do nothing to remedy the situation 
simply because the immediate and outrageous financial 
profits have priority over the quality of product. So long as 
it is in their interests not to do so, Eastman Kodak, through 
their total monopoly in the United States and many other 
parts of the world, will be responsible for the destruction of 
our past and current work. They are betraying us and will 
have to account for the conscious perversion of the future 
history of cinema. 

We must act to speed-up and expedite the solution to color 
stabilization and permanent color in film which can and 
must be achieved in this decade. The scientists and 
researchers working independently on this project do so 
with pitifully inadequate funds. This is the only obstacle to 
finding the technical solution to this problem. With our 
help, that obstacle can be removed. 

If we come together, organize and operate from a position of 
strength, we will have the most potent means of attacking 
this problem. An organization of cinematographers, 
directors and other members of the film community can 
wield power collectively, generate publicity and raise 
money. Not only would we attract funds from private and 
government institutions, but in our positions within the 
industry we could enlist the support and resources of the 
film producers and film manufacturers themselves. 

We, the members and supporters of this organization, would 
contribute annually to help fund the research and 
development of color technology. We would insist on clauses 
in our contracts that require a 3- strip black and white 
negative to be made as an insurance measure against 
unstable color stocks, and also have an answer print made 
from that negative to insure proper registration. But it 
should be mentioned that the 3-strip negatives are only a 
temporary preservative measure because, if not properly 
stored, one negative could shrink, rendering all three 

The most practical preservative and economic solution is 
developing a COLOR STABLE FILM. So, if you care about 
your work and its future, then, for its sake, please lend 
your name and support. 

If you have any questions, ideas, thoughts or suggestions 
please don't hesitate in responding: Martin Scorsese, c/o 
Chartoff Winkler Productions, 110 West 57 Street, New 
York, New York 10019. 

United we have the power to find the solution. 

Best regards, 
Martin Scorsese 

Richard Goldstein 
The Village Voice 
842 Broadway 
New York, NY 10003 

Dear Mr. Goldstein, 

Your article on the politics behind Death of a Princess was 
extremely interesting. I would like to draw your attention 
to some of the implications of World as they affect 
documentary filmmaking in the US. 

World was conceived and has behaved primarily as an 
acquisition series. It was intended to bring a foreign, i.e. 
non-American, view of the world to the American public. 
The assumption here is that there is a monolithic 
American world view; it would be more precise to say that 
there is an Establishment view of the world that is 
reflected on American television, while alternative inter- 
pretations by non-network filmmakers simply do not get 
aired. This is to mistake effect for cause. At a very early 
stage of World, Fanning told me that there simply were no 
good American documentarians. 

As a result, very few American directors have had access 
to World. The only example I can think of (apart from a 
couple of World staff producers) is David Koff with Blacks 
Britannica. There is a built-in prejudice against American 
productions in World which is a covert attack on native 
independents, all the more specious when you compare the 
budgets of World with the money available for the only 
comparable series by independents on PBS, Non-Fiction 

You are inaccurate when you suggest that Antony Thomas 
took advantage of World to develop his personal style; 
Thomas was well-established in a very rich British com- 
mercial television company, and his films on South Africa 
and Japan were made independently of WGBH (even 
though the simple act of purchase by World automatically 
puts Fanning' s name on a production as "Executive Pro- 
ducer"!). Recognizing Thomas' considerable talent (of 
which Death of a Princess is, in my opinion, the worst ex- 
ample) WGBH was understandably glad to get involved 
with Princess on a co-production basis. But I have little 
doubt that the film would have been made without WGBH, 
and WGBH would have been able to acquire it for much 
less than was involved with the co-production money. The 
decision to get involved in a production like Princess is 
essentially a political decision, bent on building prestige. 
Your description of the petty wrangling between WGBH 
and WNET draws attention to the fact that there are people 
at the very top of this system more interested in power 
than in serving the pubic. The only effective way of 
counteracting this is to give independents, whose primary 
concern is not empire-building, full access to the airwaves, 
in terms of equal time and money. 

Yours sincerely, 
Peter Davis 
Villon Films 
Hurley ville, NY 



by Gerald O'Grady 

(The following remarks are excerpts from a talk given by 
Gerald O'Grady at a Memorial Service held for James Blue at 
Media Study/Buffalo on Monday evening, June 16. Gerald 
O'Grady is Director of the Center for Media Studies, State 
University of New York at Buffalo.) 


James Blue was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma on October 10, 
1930. He became an independent documentary filmmaker 
with few peers in America. 

His first feature, THE OLIVE TREES OF JUSTICE (1962), was a 
sensitive even-handed treatment of the conflict then raging 
between the French and Arab communities, and he was aware 
of the parallels between blacks and whites in his own country 
at that time. It was awarded the Critics Prize at the Cannes 
Film Festival and the magnitude of that early achievement is 
perhaps best reflected by the fact that the next American to 
win the Critics Prize was Francis Ford Coppola with 

His first professional films on his own continent were made 
in Colombia for the United States Information Agency. In THE 
McCann concluded his commentary on James Blue's career 
with that Agency by discussing his later film on Martin Luther 
King and the Civil Rights March on Washington: 

Another film by James Blue is probably the most 
memorable one of the George Stevens, Jr. era at the 
U.S.I.A. THE MARCH (1964) has something of the epic 
quality of Pare Lorenz's THE RIVER, and in the manner 
of that poetic government documentary, it reflects the 
sharp excitement of a great contemporary issue. 

His masterpiece for the Agency was yet to come, and Basil 
Wright, the pioneering filmmaker of John Grierson's British 
documentary film unit, is its best witness. In his comprehen- 
sive international history of film, The Long View (1974), 
Wright devoted a chapter to films made about the Third 

Out of all these one, for me, remains outstanding. 
James Blue's modestly titled A FEW NOTES ON OUR 
FOOD PROBLEM (1966-68) has good claim, through the 
force of its message and its cinematic beauty, to be 
regarded as one of the few really great documen- 

Blue, having possessed himself of all of the facts and 
statistics and arguments, constructed his film from 
original shooting in Africa, Asia and the New World in 
the form of a poem infused with passion and compas- 
sion, anger and hope, and above all a feeling for the 
real goodness to be found everywhere in ordinary folk. 

Academy Award nomination. 

In 1974, James Blue went back to Africa for the third time to 
make the observational film, KENYA BORAN, with his friend 
David MacDougall. Its theme was development, moderniza- 
tion, and environmental equilibrium in a rural society, when it 

was shown at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC in 
1977, Dr. Margaret Mead pronounced it the best ethnographic 
film that she had ever seen. 

Despite such appreciations, James Blue's reputation as a 
filmmaker was never really acknowledged; in fact, it was 
somewhat obscured. His feature had been made in a foreign 
language and treated a problem which had little resonance at 
American box offices. Legislation forbids films made for the 
United States Information Agency to be shown at home; they 
are made solely for exhibition abroad. That THE SCHOOL OF 
RINCON SANTO won a Silver Lion Prize at Venice, was 
judged the Best Documentary Film at international festivals 
in Bilboa and Amsterdam and was translated into 56 
languages, was entirely irrelevant to its appreciation by the 
American public at home. His interest in the problem of Third- 
World countries under the pressure of technological develop- 
ment — the bringing of water pumps to Kenya, for example 
— was not widely shared by many of his countrymen. 

His most recent works, WHO KILLED FOURTH WARD? and 
THE INVISIBLE CITY, were ground-breaking experiments in a 
form he was inventing, the complex urban documentary: an 
audacious mixture of classic narrative genres with cinema 
verite and observational aspects of the documentary. They ex- 
plored the filmmaker's interacting with his subjects before 
the camera and his audience before the television set in en- 
tirely new ways; they were shot with a mixture of small-format 
equipment — sound-synch Super-8 film and 3 /4-inch video- 
tape; they attempted to link telephones and public television 
to a process of on-going community education; they were 
aired in Houston, shown at research conferences in several 
countries, but had not yet been accepted by a broader public. 

It had gone unnoticed that his career was unique in the 
history of American filmmakers in that he had produced 
works of excellence in an unprecedented variety of forms — 
the fictional feature, government information film, 
ethnographic cinema, and the complex documentary. 


He recognized that "documentary does not mean document, 
but the use of document; the only definition of documentary 
is the use of reality or actuality or some aspect of it that goes 
beyond it, that interprets it" (lecture at Buffalo, April 23, 
1977), and he was the only documentary filmmaker I know, 
with the exception of the Bunuel of LAS HURDES (TERRE 
SANS PAIN) (Land Without Bread), which he greatly admired, 
who would describe his filmmaking process: "It's a sur- 
realistic kind of thinking, if you want, where you find things 
that are juxtaposed in nature, in relation to the people; and 
you try to bring out the surprising quality of that juxtaposi- 
tion" (Film Comment, 1963). 

The shadow of the bier on the rocks in AMAL (Hope) is for me 
a most haunting image, powerful because it is the smaller 
fragments of those same rocks which are being raked from 
Algerian planting ground earlier in the film, and that ground 
has thus borne the stamp of man, drawn on its dry dust by 
Amal himself, a ground which can then grow plants as in- 
dicated by the drawing of a tree — LA VIE (Life) — on its 
final frame. The documentary, for James Blue, was a way of 

confronting the dead facts and issuing a report that promised 
new life. 

In later years, he would say: "I don't want the poetry. If 
there's any poetry in it that I'm putting in, I'm going to get it 
out" (lecture at Buffalo, April 23, 1977). Beginning with 
KENYA BORAN (1972), he had begun to look at what he called 
"the other side of change." In WHO KILLED FOURTH WARD? 
(1978), he raised three questions about what caused the 
disastrous effects of the city's growth on a slum in Houston: 
was it a conspiracy of the realtors? was it natural forces? 
woul.d the slum's residents organize to save themselves? He 
answered "no" in all cases. In THE INVISIBLE CITY, he 
showed how 50% of that same city's housing stock was 
deteriorating and presented no hopeful solution within the 
picture. His hope, in fact, had moved outside the picture, and 
located film in a more complex interaction with political 
culture. It was invested in promoting community efforts to ex- 
amine social and economic issues by presenting and analyz- 
ing them through community-based media. He had transfer- 
red his hope to the process through which a work, by attract- 
ing and holding an audience on television, could move its 
members toward participating in solving the problems 


He gave respect to the work of the older makers, enthusiasm 
to the work of his peers, and encouragement to the work of 
the young. It was a special pleasure for me to observe him 
over the years in conversations with Roberto Rossellini, 
Frank Capra and Leo Hurwitz. However courteous, he always 
had a relentless series of questions. He learned more by con- 
versation than anyone I knew. He also did formal videotaped 
interviews, many hours long, with all three of them. His 
mastery of the interview form had begun with a Ford Founda- 
tion grant in 1964 which allowed him to travel all over the 
world to interview 30 film directors who had begun to use 
non-actors in their work. Those with Pier Paolo Pasolini, 
Albert Maysles, Jean Rouch, Richard Leacock, Satyajit Ray, 
Shirley Clarke, Cesare Zavattini, Peter Watkins, Jean-Luc 
Godard and Roberto Rossellini, which have been published in 
Film Comment, Cahiers du Cinema and Objectif, are widely 
acknowledged as the most useful material available in film 
courses about them, and there are twenty more to come. He 
helped me establish the Oral History of the Independent 
American Cinema here and did extended interviews with 
documentary filmmakers such as Willard Van Dyke, Robert 
Gardner, Ralph Steiner and John Marshall. 

A Man for All Regions 

For all that, he was more deeply committed to American 
regionalism than any filmmaker of his time. He had directed 
what became one of the first regional media centers in the 
United States, the Media Center, later the Southwest Alter- 
nate Media Project in Houstin, Texas, and he played an active 
role as a member of the Board of Directors of Media Study/ 
Buffalo, another regional center. He had served for three 
years as a key member of the Committee on Film and Televi- 
sion Resources and Services (1973-75) which produced The 
Independent Film Community: A Report on the Status of In- 
dependent Film in the United States (1977), a document that 

brought this movement to the attention of national and state 
legislators. During the week he was dying, there took place a 
-series of screenings on "The Advantages of Diversity" at the 
tenth Public Television and the Independent Film Seminar ar 
Arden House in New York, a program which he had coor- 
dinated for International Film Seminars. He was to moderate 
the seminar, attended by 100 filmmakers and public television 
station programmers, the theme being the exposure of work 
made by Black, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, Native American and 
ethnic minorities. It was the first time that a group of Native 
American imagemakers brought their work and philosophy to 
the Seminar, and on its last day, Larry Littlebird (Circle Film, 
Sante Fe, New Mexico) recorded on cassette a "Song for the 
Journey" (from THE SWEATHOUSE) and that gift was in the 
mail when the journey began. 

His regionalism was often misunderstood. It was confused 
with evidencing too much concern for a particular locality — 
Houston, Buffalo; the Southwest, the Northeast. People were 
genuinely bewildered by his seeming lack of interest in what 
everyone else took to be of acknowledged national impor- 
tance. But he was aware of living through a period when na- 
tionalism was undergoing a transformation, back toward local 
community authority and forward toward world cooperation. 
His way of moving simultaneously in two seemingly opposite 
directions was just a means of maintaining the stability of his 
commitments. His tensegrity was located in his moral con- 

His belief, quite simply, was that creators could arise in any 
town on earth. Citizenship, in fact, was the key theme of his 
classes. For the twelve years that I knew him, he steadfastly 
maintained that democracy demanded that our public media 
be more diverse in giving access to a variety of new voices. In 
his essay, Super-8 and the Community: A New Role for Film 
in the University, he wrote: "My key concept was the 
democratization of media in terms of promoting general 
awareness and providing access to the materials of produc- 
tion." He did not hold to this as some comfortable ideal, but 
rather fought continually to make it a practical reality. 

In Houston, he teamed up with Ed Hugetz of the Southwest 
Alternate Media Project and with KUHT-TV to produce a week- 
ly program of work by independent imagemakers in the 
Southwest, THE TERRITORY. In Buffalo, he collaborated with 
Lynn Corcoran of Media Study/Buffalo and with WNED-TV to 
produce a series of sixteen weekly programs, THE FRON- 
TIER, which featured twenty-seven independent makers from 
western New York and southern Ontario. Through his involve- 
ment with the USIA in the early years of the Kennedy ad- 
ministration, he was aware that the physical frontiers were 
being transmuted into "new frontiers" located on the moon 
and in the urban ghetto. 

(A fund has been established for the preservation and distribution of 
the films, writings, and sound recordings of James Blue. Contributions 
should be made out to the James Blue Memorial Fund and mailed to 
Media Study/Buffalo, 207 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, N Y 14202.) 

ItHAA U*i/*Xtjl to A f<^>ti4 





In sending out this first invitation, the Program Fund of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting is inaugurating a regular 
series of requests for program proposals. These invitations 
will try to provide opportunity for the most diverse forms and 
subjects, and will, in fact, encourage producers to rethink and 
break through the conventional forms and subjects of broad- 
casting. They will necessarily be written in traditional terms, 
such as public affairs, documentary; but as much as possible, 
it is our hope that a new vocabulary of programming will 
emerge as the independent producers address the problem. 

These invitations are offered in the spirit of the Program 
Fund's guidelines: to extend the search for excellence and 
diversity until public broadcasting represents a true mosaic 
of the American scene. Our goal is a three hundred and sixty 
degree radar sweep of the society, sensitive to the faces, 
voices and ideas which are part of our present reality, and 
which make us aware of the threats and promises that lie in 
the future, but which might otherwise be unseen and 

The Program Fund has allocated $1,500,000 for this first 
solicitation which invites all independent producers to submit 
proposals for programs that will be broadcast in a weekly an- 
thology. Selected programs will be packaged under the ad- 
ministration of an executive coordinator. For this anthology, 
each proposal should deal with an aspect of contemporary 
American society. Although the widest range of ideas will be 
considered, preference will be given to proposals that explore 
issues of some urgency, matters of life and death. 

Interpreted in the broadest possible sense, matters of life and 
death could range from the safety of the community, the 
threatened existence of a way of life, the survival of a culture 
to the birth and/or death of an individual, either spiritual or 
physical. It might even refer to natural phenomena: a breed of 
plant, a species of animal, an earthquake fault or a volcano. 
Matters of life and death can be political, anthropological and 
social, or they can be religious, scientific and personal. 

From the past, many examples come to mind: Flaherty's film 
of Nanook's struggle to survive; Lorentz' indictment of a 
society in The Plow that Broke the Plains; and Grierson's 
poetic evocation of the night mail train's rush from London to 
Edinburgh. More recently, Kopple's Harlan County, U.S.A., 
Leacock's Happy Mother's Day, and Wiseman's Welfare are 
all examples of crises in the lives of individuals, of families, 
or of societies: matters of life and death, literally and 


Length: Each program must be no longer,bu\ may be shorter, 
than 30 minutes. 

Phase: Projects may be submitted in one of three phases of 

1) Programs in Post-Production or Completed; 

2) Work in Progress; 

3) Production Idea. 

Note: Those who have completed works or works in progress 
should be prepared to send samples of work on request. DO 

Completion: All productions must be completed by June 30, 


By submitting a proposal in response to this invitation, each 
producer warrants that CPB has the right to use and duplicate 
the proposal for purposes of evaluation, review and research; 
that CPB is not responsible for loss of or damage to the pro- 
posal, or for any use or misuse by any third party unless done 
under CPB's direction or authorization; that the producer has 
full and complete rights to the material contained in the pro- 
posal; and that the material sent to CPB does not infringe 
upon or violate any copyright held by a third person or cor- 

All producers receiving funds from CPB must be able to pro- 
vide the following: 

— Four national releases in a three-year period (a national 
release entails unlimited broadcast of the program dur- 
ing a seven-day period following the initial release). 

— Clearance for exclusive use by all educational and 
public television stations or facilities. 

— Right to use names, voices, likenesses, etc. of par- 
ticipants for promotion. 

— Right of prior approval by CPB of any sale of rights after 
CPB's involvement pre- or post-production. 

— A share of income to CPB coming from ancillary use. 

— Clearance for distribution to American Forces Radio 
and Television Service. 

— Adequate records made available to CPB and the U.S. 
Government Accounting Office. 

— Nondiscriminatory employment provisions as outlined 
by CPB guidelines. 

You're invited 

— Indicate any rights holders other than the producer and 
any rights which have been pre-sold. 

This summary should not be considered a comprehensive list 
of CPB's contract provisions. Producers unfamiliar with stan- 
dard CPB agreements are advised to contact the Corporation 
for a complete list of requirements and a sample contract. 


To be complete, a proposal must include: 

1) Basic Information Sheet — The Basic Information 
Sheet, available on request, must be filled in legibly and 
completely. Please attach the mailing label from 
envelope to the Basic Information Sheet where in- 

2) Narrative — Describe the project by summarizing in 
three pages, or less, the subject and program idea. 

3) Budget, Timeline, and Production Facilities — A detail- 
ed budget which itemizes actual and/or projected costs 
must accompany the narrative. Indicate how much of 
the total cost you are requesting from CPB and list 
sources and amount of other support, if any. Include a 
timeline and identify the production facilities that you 
intend to use. 

4) Personnel — List key production personnel with brief 
biographies. Include the names of consultants and/or 
advisors where appropriate. 

Retain 1 and send 6 copies of each of the above to: 

Independent Anthology 

Program Fund 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

1111 Sixteenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Do not send videocassettes or film. 


All proposals must be received at CPB by close of business 
(5:30 PM) on Friday, September 19, 1980. CPB will not be 
responsible for postal service delays. 


Program Fund staff will check all proposals for completeness 
prior to panel review and evaluation. Final selections will be 
made by the Director of the Program Fund. Deliberations of 
the panels will be confidential; names of the panelists will not 
be released until after the final selections have been an- 


Proposals selected to receive CPB funds will be announced 
October 31, 1980. 


Questions regarding the submission of proposals should be 
directed to Eloise Payne (202) 293-6160. 

Ed. Note: Independent Producers who wish to submit pro- 
posals should contact the above address/phone number for 
original application forms. 


The Black Filmmaker Foundation will host a National 
Conference of Black Independent Filmmakers from 
September 8 to September 12, 1980 at the City Univer- 
sity of New York Graduate Center in NYC. This is the 
first national conference organized by Black indepen- 
dent filmmakers. 

The objective of the conference is to bring filmmakers 
and video artists together to discuss their work: 1) its 
aesthetic direction, 2) the social and political issues it 
raises, and 3) the mechanics of effective dissemination. 
The conference will also provide a forum for Black in- 
dependent video and filmmakers to discuss significant 
issues with individuals who are charged with the major 
decision making responsibilities in media, distribution, 
and funding. 

Filmmakers and video artists who have independently 
produced or directed a work available to be screened 
are encouraged to apply. While first priority will be 
given to filmmakers with a producer or director credit, 
filmmakers with credits as writers, cinematographers 
and editors may also apply. Applicants must complete 
an application and submit a resume along with a film or 
video work that will be available for screening during 
JULY 15, 1980. For more information, contact: The BFF, 
79 Madison Avenue, Suite 906, New York, NY 10016. 



by John Schwartz 

The pre-eminent power in communications is the ability to 
determine what the public will see. 1 Thus, in both public and 
commercial broadcasting, the entities controlling distribution 
are able to dictate terms to others who create programs. 2 To 
date, independents and others who wish to change public 
telecommunicationc Save been struggling from the outside to 
influence the fashion in which others exercise their power 
and de facto ownership of the airwaves. 

Those interested in social change — independent producers 
among them — should consider finding ways to control 
means of program distribution. Such control would lead to 
more than creative freedom; access to the public also means 
the ability to generate rrvenue, as anyone who has ever 
watched a public TV auction ?r pledge week can attest. 

We are fortunate to live at a time in which technology is open- 
ing new opportunities in electronic media distribution. The 
following are thumbnail descriptions of a number of pos- 
sibilities; some of these ideas, after more complete study, 


will turn out to be practical and some won't. Also, the 
feasibility of a number of these notions will depend on local 

Guaranteed Access to Cable Systems 

FCC rules provide that a cable system must carry all local 
noncommercial broadcast stations within a minimum of 35 
miles of the community served by the system. Minimum re- 
quired power for a broadcast TV station is 100 watts, 
although almost all stations use a great deal more, since 
such low power would carry only a few miles. Low power, 
however, leads to savings of hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in transmitter and antenna costs — and does not 
mean the waiver of minimum mandatory cable coverage. I 
recently oversaw the construction of a high power VHF televi- 
sion station for about $200,000, and am sure that one could 
build a low-power UHF for less. While these sums are 
substantial, they are in the same league as the cost of an am- 
bitious documentary or any sort of feature film. 


In areas that have heavy cable penetration within 35 miles of 
the core city, then, one could obtain guaranteed 24-hour ac- 
cess to hundreds of thousands of cable households for free. 
While commercial frequencies are now very difficult to obtain 
near major population centers, unoccupied UHF frequencies 
reserved for noncommercial purposes are available in such 
cities as Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Fort Worth, St. Louis, 
Atlanta, Seattle, and Denver. Vacant channels are also avail- 
able in locations such as Akron, OH (on the fringes of the 
Cleveland market), Boca Raton, FL (Miami), and Bradenton, FL 
(Tampa Bay). In many areas — particularly outside the North- 
east and industrial Midwest — it may be possible to get the 
FCC to set aside additional frequencies for noncommercial 

On a very local basis, FCC rules provide that cable systems 
must carry the signals of television translators that have 100 
watts of power or more (although this requirement applies 
only to the cable system in the specific community served by 
the translator). 3 Translators are low-power devices that pick 
up a broadcast station's signal and retransmit it on a different 
frequency. Like the early cable systems, translators have 
traditionally been used to fill in portions of a station's 
coverage area where terrain or other factors made reception 
difficult. Under present rules, translators are not allowed to 
originate any significant amounts of programming — they are 
merely rebroadcasting devices. However, pending rulemaking 
may lead to changes which could blur the distinction be- 
tween translators and broadcast stations, allowing translators 
to originate programming for the first time. 

Local Subscription Television 

Over-the-air pay television has been a runaway commercial 
success, but is prohibited by the FCC on noncommercial 
channels. KQED, San Francisco, has asked that the FCC 
waive this rule for its UHF sister station; the Commission, 
now in a deregulatory mood, might just go along. 

Satellite- Fed Cable Systems and Translators 

Interestingly, fundamentalist religious organizations have 
taken the lead in using this technology. Three separate 
evangelical groups have 24-hour channels on RCA's Satcom I, 
the prime satellite which feeds cable systems. Another is try- 
ing to establish an extensive satellite-fed network of 

The preceding would seem to indicate that these approaches 
would be impractical without truly major funding, which 
might be obtainable since their impact is national. The 
Department of Commerce's Public Telecommuniucations 
Facilities Program is one possible source of money, since it 
can provide funds for the lease of equipment as well as pur- 

Videocassettes and Discs 

There are now about 1.5 million Vz" videocassette recorders 
in the United States — most of them in the VHS format, but 
with a significant minority in Betamax. By comparison, the 
Washington DC television market (the nation's eighth 
largest) has about 1.4 million TV households. Clearly, there is 
the beginning of a significant audience here, which is already 
being exploited by commercial firms whose principal pro- 
ducts are Hollywood features and pornographic films. In the 
independent world, the Chicago Editing Center has launched 
a pilot project to explore cassette marketing possibilities. 

A disadvantage of cassette marketing is that blank tape cost 
alone is appreciable and tape duplication is cumbersome, 
thus considerably raising the cost of the finished product. 
Discs will be a lot cheaper to produce, but there is no signifi- 
cant player saturation yet. Again, there will be at least two 
competing formats: the MCA/Phillips optical system, which is 
already on the market, and the RCA capacitance system, 
which will be soon. If a goodly number of players are sold, 
discs will prove to be one of the best alternative distribution 

Direct Broadcast Satellites 

This is truly a blue sky possibility, and sure to be expensive. 
Comsat has a DBS proposal, but has postponed filing it with 
the FCC. Even if Comsat or someone else can make DBS fly, 
it will be sure to cost a bundle to get a channel on it (assum- 
ing that the satellite operator doesn't plan to provide all the 
programming itself). 

Self-distribution has become more and more of a watchword 
among independent producers in recent years. I hope the 
preceding smorgasbord of ideas will get indies thinking about 
new ways to gain control of their work's distribution. 

(John Schwartz is founder and former president of KBDI-TV, 
an unorthodox public TV station near Denver. He also 
established the Independent Film and Video Distribution 
Center, a project to market independents' work to public TV 
stations via satellite.) 

These groups are in an expensive business, as a full-time 
non-preemptible video channel with backup to cover technical 
failure costs $1.2 million annually, and demand is outstrip- 
ping supply. Also, most cable systems have only one satellite 
receive terminal, which is almost certain to be aimed at Sat- 
com I. Satcom I is fully booked; there is now much specula- 
tion as to which satellite will be the second major cable bid 
— Westar III or Comstar D-2 — but even if one were prescient 
enough to know the answer, I am not certain that a channel 
would be available even there. Finally, unlike broadcast signal 
carriage, a satellite-fed signal is carried only at the pleasure 
of the cable operator. It would of course be unnecessary to 
use a prime cable satellite to feed translators, 4 but one would 
have to buy earth terminal and translator equipment for each 
locality to be served, in addition to paying for satellite time. 

' In public TV, of course, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting exercises 
important financial power, despite the fact that it is barred by statute from being 
involved in program distribution. Yet the- force that made the CPB's creation pos- 
sible through the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and which 
produces growing appropriations is public TV and radio's ability to deliver pro- 

'One could argue that this relationship is an artifact of the scarcity of distribution 
channels, and that in the future new technologies will open so many new avenues 
to the public that the premium will be on software. There may be some truth to 
this argument, although in the last analysis it may prove easier to expand produc- 
tion capability than distribution capability. There is certainly an immense surplus 
of production capacity at the moment, as evidenced by unemployment in 
Hollywood and among indies nationally. 

'Cable systems which have been built or rebuilt in recent years are required to 
carry noncommercial translators of five watts or more. 

"One could even use Satellite Business System's upcoming generation of high- 
power high-frequency (11 GHz downlink) satellites, thereby possibly reducing 
costs. — 


by Dee Dee Halleck 

"Give us twenty minutes, and we'll give you the world. " 

WINS News Radio 

"We've got to face up to the fact that information is a 
PRODUCT. We're in the business of marketing that product." 

G. Russell Pipe 

Transnational Data Report Service 

"We've got to get some of that old entrepreneurial spirit; 

we've got to get some of that marketplace mentality." 

John Jay Iselin, President WNET 
at a recent Board meeting 

Public television is abandoning its liberal rhetoric. Terms like 
"non-commercial", "diverse", and "democratic" are being 
whited-out of their copy these days. Rhetoric like that is OK, 
as long as it stays quietly ensconced on a grant application or 
a report to the members. It's quite another matter when it 
turns up on a poster being picketed around the station of- 
fices. So forget diversity. What we need is "quality." 

This little pig went to market. . . 

Go to a board meeting. Any board meeting of your local public 
television station. They are open to the public. They have to 
be. The discussions will center on the "new direction." Let's 
call it Neo-Public Television. For instance: 

• KQED in San Francisco: They are applying to the FCC 
for a waiver of their "non-commercial" status. They 
want to start scrambling the signals on their UHF sta- 
tion and sell it to cable systems. 

• WNET in New York: They are setting whole floors of the 
Henry Hudson Hotel aside for new "development" of- 
fices to sell their product (Beverly Sills?) to cable, HBO 
and the European TV circuit. Caveat indies: New con- 
tracts for independents give PTV rights to non- 
broadcast technologies — i.e. cable, videodisc, 
schools, libraries etc. — and international broadcast. 
Get a lawyer and negotiate. 

• WQLN in Erie, PA: They're talking about selling stuff to 
the networks, syndication, and videodiscs. 

• WETA, WNET, WTTW AND KCET are not only selling air 
and rights, they're selling print. They've pooled some 
capital to make a magazine, one that would announce 
the local programming in addition to featuring a few 
trendy articles. The object to sell ads and make money. 
KQED has been doing this for years. However, the Com- 
mittee to Save KQED says they have figures that prove 
it's been a consistent money loser. The mock-ups for 
the new publication, The Deal, have spacey and ap- 
propriately alienating covers. They make it look like the 
kind of free rag you would get if you were to ride Omni 

"Probably Another Cultural Embarassment." 
—Scott Jacobs 

The Carnegie Commission on Public Television just gave out 
a dying wheeze. PACE. Performing Arts, Culture and Enter- 
tainment. It's a proposal for another PTV bureaucracy. They 
want CPB (or PBS) (or Congress) to set up a cultural system 
to be offered to cable companies, either as subscription/ 
scrambled or as a premium for cable service. 


Don't worry. This system won't be only BBC prods. Their 
sample schedule includes "New Wave." Amos Poe? Scott 
and Beth B? Eric Mitchell? Nope. They mean the OLD New 
Wave: Godard, Truffaut. Nick DeMartino is quick to point out 
the advantages of this idea. They want to insure that there is 
a big chunk of money for programming. Their contention is 
that PTV sources are drying up. (CPB, however, always the 
main support, continues to get larger allocations each year.) 

They say that after all the galas from Lincoln Center have 
been paid for, there will be spare money left over to fund in- 
dependents and minorities. Crumbs again. Poor Artists Can't 
Eat trickle-down theories. 

Singing Wires 

It's Sunday afternoon. I have a few hours before my plane to 
Chicago for a stint at the Chicago Editing Center. I switch on 
the tube. I haven't watched it for weeks. Months. Not even the 
news. Having a tiny baby around makes you more careful. 
Have you ever noticed how sometimes people will start to 
take out a cigarette and then notice a baby present and put it 
out? TV is the same way. 

But now my travel anxiety is overcoming my maternal in- 
stinct. Molly is asleep in the other room. Just a toke. Anyway 
I'd better check out what's on, seeing as how I'm billed on 
this gig as a media expert. 

Ugha. Ugha. The Indians are restless. The white men start to 
take cover. Too late. The attack is on. War cries, tomahawks, 
rifles and stampeding ponies. They easily overpower the 
small band of engineers. Engineers???!! This is no stage- 
coach romp. These pioneers are communicators. It's Western 
Union, directed by Fritz Lang in 1941. 

The dumb Indians peer through the surveying glass. They 
wallow in the jumbled wire. They bite it. Randolph Scott 
closes the circuit. ZAP. "Ugh. White man has powerful 

Robert Young warns: "Let's get out of here before they have 
time to think it over." 

Later, safe in town, they bury their dead and call in help: a 
colonel and a US regiment. "We have orders from Washing- 
ton to help you all we can. The lines must go through." 
What's bad for Western Union is bad for the country. 

Fiddle sounds. The company workers, a jolly bunch, are 
celebrating the last pole, now that the Injuns have been taken 
care of. The boss comes out. They all cheer. "I've got good 
news for you, boys. The job is done. (Hurrah.) You all get two 
months' bonus and a double feed tonight. (Hurrah, hurrah.)" 
Shots of drunken, happy workers guzzling down the grub. 

Cut to wistful Indian. Randolph Scott: "Chief, you can't fight 
something as big and as important as Western Union." 

Shot of graves of company heroes; pan up to telephone pole; 
pan continues to luminous sky. Fade. 

Free to Choose 

The cable rush is on in Chicago's Suburbia. Nineteen systems 
are vying for Evanston. All the suburbs have similar battles. 
The towns are offered mobile vans for shooting the football 
games, color cameras for the PTA. Anything short of a percen- 
tage on the gross. 


One of the major companies seems to have quite an edge on 
cornering franchises — Cablevision. A local magazine reveals 
that three major stockholders of this company are Chicago's 
own Hugh Hefner, Milton Friedman and Newton Minow. 
Milton Friedman is the UC economist and Pinochet-Chile con- 
sultant whose Ode to Capitalism series was featured on PBS 
this year. Newton Minow coined the term "vast wasteland" in 
reference to TV while he was on the FCC. He has most recent- 
ly been serving a term as Chairman of the Board of PBS. It 
might be interesting to explore the connections between the 
cable biggies and those in place at PBS and at the stations. 
And speaking of connections, ATT has recently been freed up 
by the FCC to enable them to get into programming and data 
transmission. Is there a possible conflict of interest in the fact 
that William J. McGill, president of the Carnegie Commission, 
is also a director of ATT and a recent appointment to WNET's 
Board? White man has powerful medicine. 

Exporting the Wasteland: The Freedom of 
Information Boys Versus the New World 
Information Order Boys. 

Boys it is. Out of 104 speakers at the World Communications 
Conference, only eleven are women, which is probably a 
favorable ratio compared to the status quo in broadcasting. 
Thumb through one of the trade magazines, say Broad- 
casting, and count the number of women pictured. I mean the 
ones in the business, not the Dallas cheerleaders in the net- 
work ads or the Japanese women in kimonos on the 
Trinitrons. The window-dressing is on the set, not in the 

This is a conference sponsored by Annenberg School of Com- 
munications (TV Guide) and the International Communica- 
tions Agency, the ICA. Over 600 delegates have come to 
Philadelphia from all over the world. There is quite an interna- 
tional controversy stirring here. You won't hear it discussed 
on Atlantic Richfield's McNeil/Lehrer. 

The Indians are restless. This time they're not buying that 
strong medicine. The US and the transnational corporations 
are saying "Trust us. Give us your airwaves. We will bring you 
the modern world". Data. Transborder data. Charge cards. 
Digital money. Mork and Mindy. The California primary, in 
color, with Ronald Reagan. Beverly Sills to explain culture to 

They don't want it. They want their own transponders. They 
want their own currency with pictures of their own palm trees 
on the back. They want to do their own instructional televi- 
sion. They don't even like Sesame Street. They even want to 
do their own cultural magazines without Beverly Sills. In 
short, what they want is a "new world information order." 
They want to regulate their communications "to assure a 
balance of information". 

Wait a minute, the US State Department counters. Didn't you 
guys read Animal Farm in the eighth grade? That's 
totalitarianismW You're trying to censor us. There must be a 
free flow. No holds barred. No borders shut. Go ahead, 
regulate your own broadcasting transmitters. We've got 
satellites. They can bring you color TV from Space right into 
your own hut. All you need is this little dish. Then you can get 
Ryan's Hope, brought to you by Nestle's. We're talking about 
human rights; you have a right to get what we're selling. 

Electronic Information Tiger 

"The Third World is beginning to recognize that the radio 
spectrum is the key to economic and military power. All of 
the industrialized nations' economic and military machines 
depend for their effectiveness on the use of radio- 

telecommunications. This makes the spectrum the soft 
underbelly of aggressor nations. It makes the radio spectrum 
the Electronic Information Tiger. . . The advanced systems of 
both the US and the industrialized socialist countries are 
vulnerable to the collective pressure from the small countries, 
which can, simply by jamming the use of the airwaves, stop 

—Dallas Smythe, 
Communications Professor, 
Simon Fraser University, 

Costa Rica Has No Army 

Liliana Garcia de Davis is president of the Costa Rican 
delegation to WARC, the World Administrative Radio Con- 
ference, where the allocation of the spectrum was discussed 
last fall, and where it will be decided in future meetings. 

We chat about the paltry female representation in com- 
munications at the policy level and I express surprise that a 
Latin American delegation has a woman leader. "You have 
many stereotypes about us that are false," she replies. "The 
Spanish culture has a deep respect for women. For instance, I 
never give up my own name. I am Liliana Garcia. No matter 
how many times I marry I will always be Liliana Garcia. Here 
in the U.S. I see many women who call themselves Mrs. John 
Smith. I would never do that — call myself by my husband's 
name. I will die Liliana Garcia." 

I comment that it is good that her country deems it sufficient- 
ly important to send a substantial delegation to WARC. 
"These issues are the key to our development economically 
and culturally. Costa Rica has no army. We are the only coun- 
try in the world without a military, but we have a communica- 
tions office." 

She is perturbed that the Annenberg conference does not 
have simultaneous translations. English is the assumed 
language. This seems rather arrogant, in view of the title 
World Communications Conference: Decisions for the 
Eighties. Is this a conscious decision, that English is the only 
language in the world? She is also amazed at the ignorance 
of many of the American participants. "So many people don't 
even know where all these countries are. I think they should 
put up a big map and have everyone identify where all these 
places are. They don't know whether a country is in Africa or 

Praise the Lord and Pass the Cottage Cheese 

The dining room is full. I'm late. There are a few empty seats. 
Clink, clink. 600 communicators eating Del Monte's fruit com- 
pote in small glass dishes. There is an empty place next to a 
young man whose neck twists uncomfortably in his starched 
collar. His short hair and gangly look would be punk in SoHo, 
if his shirt were more rumpled and his demeanor more at 
east. But there's a slyness about him and a quizzical expres- 
sion that soon identifies him as a "techie". 

What do you do, I ask. Build radio and TV stations. Oh. 
Where? Right now, in the Andes. For whom? Religious 
organizations. Which ones? Right now, my own. Which is 
that? Baha'i. But I've built quite a few for other groups. And 
not just religious ones. I was building one for some people in 
Ecuador. They were revolutionaries. But they got shot, so we 
never got the transmitter up. How much does it cost? It 
depends on what they want. I can put up a good strong radio 
signal for about $2000. A TV station costs more. But I can do 
it real cheap. Lots of times I lose a job because I bid too low 
and no one can believe the price. Lots of big companies come 
around and tell them that they need to have a lot of fancy 
stuff — things they really don't need. It breaks down in a 



couple of months and then they have to wait for years for 
parts and repairmen. I build it real simple and teach them how 
to run it right and how to fix it when it's down. Except for that 
one in Ecuador, all my stations are running fine, as far as I 
know. South America, Central America, Africa, even South- 
east Asia. I've been around. 

The waiter brings him his special order — a vegetarian plate. 

This little piggie went wee wee wee 
all the way home 

"(In the US) society's cultural process, its deepest concern, 
has remained largely removed from general consideration and 
public decision-making. Television, the most educative force 

in existence has been left almost entirely to private con- 
siderations and the vagaries of the marketplace. 

"The fetters that bind American talent and limit its national 
engagement are essentially the same as those which are hob- 
bling the social utilization of global communications. . . . 

The prospect for a genuinely international space communica- 
tions system, which operates to satisfy global educational 
and cultural aspirations, is heavily dependent on the degree 
to which American domestic communications are utilized for 
the social benefit of its own population. . ." 

— Herbert I. Schiller, 
Mass Communications and 
American Empire 



The National Film Market has gone public. Beginning with a 
full-page ad in the Spring issue of Film News, the Second 
National Film Market started its multi-thousand dollar adver- 
tising blitz to attract film buyers. Registration for film buyers 
will be $10 a day. Single hotel rooms are only $34 a day. Com- 
pare that to the American Film Festival, for example. (It's the 
same registration price, but the rooms cost more.) Since the 
Film Market is mostly business, the buyers will be invited to 
exhibitor-paid evening events and workshops. With 30 exhibit 
screening rooms and perhaps as many as 200 qualified 
buyers, it is possible that last year's unofficial Market order 
volume of $600,000 will be broken. 

We attended a meeting of the Market at the beginning of 
June at the Canadian Film Board offices in New York, and 
this writer feels that Market coordinators and spokesmen 
Hulen Bivins and Stanford Pruett are trying to be responsive 
to the needs of small independent filmmakers and 
distributors. The problem really seems to be the lack of ex- 
hibit/screening rooms and the desire to accommodate the 
original 20 exhibitors and all of the new exhibitors. Clearly, 
one-film distribution companies cannot afford to exhibit when 
half a room costs $1,150. Yet $1,150 or $2,000 can seem like a 
bargain when one begins to see where the money is going. 
Registration costs, two pages in the program, screening room 
with projector, and a lot of promotion explain the fee. (A page 
in the EFLA program is $350, entry fees are high, adding an 
exhibit table makes the costs for the two programs about the 

The National Film Market sent out letters inviting many small 
film companies in this year. With only a few rooms left (as of 
the New York meeting), I suspect that many who want to ex- 
hibit will have to wait another year. The Market requires each 
distributor to qualify, which at the New York meeting meant 
the company had to be in business for at least 3 years, pro- 
vide replacement footage and release 3 films a year. It would 
seem that those rules are pretty loose, and we were told that 
the board would examine the merits of any applicant that 
does not fall into those guidelines for possible consideration. 

The Market deserves a chance, and independents who are 
selling their films to the non-theatrical market should look at 
the Market as another way of reaching their customers. The 
Market seems to be growing up fast, and Pruett and Bivins 



seem to be concerned with independents and fairness. For 
more information on the Market contact: Stanford Pruett, 
Market Coordinator, P.O. Box 11274, Memphis TN 38111, (901) 
345-4566. It will probably be too late to get in by the time you 
read this, but there is always next year. 


Prior to the American Film Festival a letter went out to all of 
the small film companies listed in the back of the 1980 
American Film Festival program. This letter invited these com- 
panies to a small meeting hosted by Debra Franco of Momen- 
tum Media and New Day and yours truly, Mitchell Block of 
Direct Cinema. Laura Shuster of Appalshop Films and Laura 
Rasmussen of Community Media Productions and New Day 
Films also were sponsors. The purpose of the meeting was to 
talk about how small distributors, non-profit distributors and 
self-distributors could possibly work together. Over 60 people 

Franco and Block talked about the need for small companies 
to work together and many positive ideas came out of the 
meeting. Clearly there is a need for an independent 
distributors' organization. Some of the areas that were 
discussed included: 

1. Joint mailings of materials by different distributors. 

2. Shared hospitality suites and screening facilities at 
festivals. (Four companies splitting a room at the American 
Film Festival, for example, could get costs down to under 
$50 a day each for 2-3 hours of screening time!) 

3. Regional meetings where independents would get together 
on a regular basis to share ideas and talk about ways of 
working together. 

4. Representation of small distributors and independents on 
festival advisory boards and committees. 

5. A number of individuals felt that common catalogues could 
be helpful. 

The group felt a need for independent distributors to start 
working together in areas that would save costs yet preserve 
the individual identities of all of the companies. If you 
distribute your films or other people's films or tapes and 
would like to get on the mailing list, send your name and 
address to: Ben Achtenberg, 47 Halifax Street, Jamaica Plain 
MA 02130. A directory of independent distributors is in the 
works and listings will be open to all self-distributors and 
other distributors. 


PBS has just developed an income sharing plan in which in- 
dependents who receive partial funding from Public Televi- 
sion must share ancillary market revenues wilh PBS. This 
rights arrangement does not look favorable for independents. 
This new "program use policy" Vommittee statement was 
adopted by the PBS Board at their June 4th meeting. A few 
key excerpts appear below: 

Income Sharing 

All income from sales to commercial broadcast stations, free 
cable systems, pay cable, subscription television, institu- 
tional audio-visual, school off-air rerecord, home rights, and 
foreign broadcast and nonbroadcast rights sales of any PBS- 
financed program, based on the ratio of PBS financing to non- 
PBS financing, should be divided between the producer and 
PBS, acting on behalf of the stations, according to the follow- 
ing distribution priorities: 

a. To the producer and/or PBS (depending on who bears the 
cost of sales and holds the rights) — administrative costs 
(e.g., costs of sales, agents' commissions, residual 
payments, etc.). 

b. To producer — an amount equal to the amount of money 
the producer has contributed to the production, as set o*ut 
in a PBS-approved production budget. 

c. To producer — an amount, up to a ceiling of 5% of the 
PBS-approved production budget, to cover auditable over- 

d. The amount remaining after these priority distributions is 
the net revenue that shall be divided in accordance with 
the following formula: 

(1) For revenue derived from the sale during the PBS 
rights period of programs to commercial broadcasting 
stations, free and pay cable, and STV, commencing 

with programs financed after February 1, 1980, PBS 
shall receive two-thirds of the net revenue based on 
the ratio of PBS financing in the program. For revenue 
derived from such sales after the PBS rights period 
has expired PBS', share shall be reduced to one-third. 

(2) For revenue derived from the sale for institutional 
audio-visual theatrical, school off-air rerecord, home 
and foreign broadcast and nonbroadcast uses, com- 
mencing with programs financed after July 1, 1980, 
PBs shall receive one-third of the net revenue based 
on the radio of PBS financing in the program. 

e. PBS' rights to share income do not apply to production 
funds and cease when the total of the net revenue 
distributed to PBS equals PBS' original investment in the 

This policy will be applied to all producers offering programs 
for PBS financing without exception. Under certain situa- 
tions, however, a grandfathering of existing arrangements will 
be maintained. Thus, arrangements between producing sta- 
tions and talent or coproducers will not be altered for future 
productions of the same program series. Further, arrange- 
ments with independent producers will not be altered for 
subsequent series of current programs. All new programs or 
series from such entities will, however, be covered by this 

Consistent with all other PBS Program Use Policies and cur- 
rent practice, producers should be encouraged to obtain or 
option nonbroadcast distribution rights so that public televi- 
sion can exploit those rights, as appropriate. 

The document from which the above excerpts were taken is 
available for producers' consideration at the AIVF office. 
AIVF plans to coordinate a response to this report. Member- 
ship input is needed. Contact John Rice at our office: (212) 

Almost half the films awarded Blue Ribbons at this year's American Film Festival were produced by Independents. Pictured above Is CUTS, directed by 
Charles Gustafson, one of the short films which won top honors. 



The following study was commissioned by the National 
Endowment for the Arts and was carried out by Math- 
tech of Princeton, New Jersey. In 1977 Congress man- 
dated the N.E.A. to carry out a similar study on theater 
arts. This most recent study on media was undertaken 

without such a mandate. The statistics on indepen- 
dents presented here comprise but a small portion of 
the larger study on media. The section on independent 
film and video was drawn from information provided by 
the AFI, CPB, NEA, PBS and AIVF. 

Applicants and Grantees of Selected Funding Sources 

American Film 

Media Arts 



a Program 



































































Growth Rate 










Number of Awards to Independent Filmmaker Grantees 

According to Type of Project (1968 to 1978) 

Type of Project 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Total 

Dramatic 14 8 3 1 7 8 10 5 12 11 15 94 

Documentary 9 63 2 7 7 82 813 1176 

Experimental 241 2 2443482 36 

Animated 2—22 2223952 31 

Animated/Experimental 2 — — — — 1 4 — — — — 7 

Documentary/Experimental ____ -| _ 2 — 4 — — 7 

Dramatic/Documentary 1 — — — -|______2 

Dramatic/Musical __________ 2 2 

Educational 1_______ -|__2 

Other* 2 — — — — — 1— 2 — — 5 

Total 33 18 9 7 20 22 31 13 40 37 32 262** 

includes one of each of the following: Experimental/Dual Image, Abstract/Experimental, Animated/ 
Documentary, Documentary/Social, Music, and Holography. 

**Total number is 262 and not 278 because there are co-grantees. 


Financial Sources for Films Made by AIVF AmQunt Qf Payments |0 

Independent Filmmakers (1977-1978) Independent Filmmakers Responding to 

AIVF Questionnaire (Lump-Sum), 1979 

No. of Percent 
Financial Source Filmmakers of Total 

1 Personal 36 54.6 Amount of No. of Percent 

2 Credit 1 1.5 Payment (in $) Persons of Total 

3 Backers 5 7.6 ~ 

4 Federal Government 5 7.6 ° 14 298 

5 State Government 4 6.2 Less than 1,000 4 8.5 

6 TV Station 3 4.5 1,000-2,500 3 6.4 

7 Foundations 3 4.5 2,501- 4,000 1 2.1 

8 Personal/Backers 3 4.5 4 001- 7 000 2 4.2 

9 Federal/State 7 001-12 000 2 4 2 
Government 2 3.0 '- UU1 12,uuu * 4Z 

10 Backers/TV Station 2 3.0 12,001-25,000 1 2.1 

11 Foundation/Personal 2 3.0 25,001-40,000 2 4.2 
TOTAL 66 100.0 Not Specifying 18 38.3 

NOTE: The sample consists of 75 persons of whom 9 Total Respondents 47 100.0 

did not respond to this question. — 

Source: AIVF 



Distribution of AIVF Members According to Their Budget 
Recovered Through Broadcasting 

Number of 


Type of Broadcast 

of Budget 









of Total 


of Total 


of Total 


of Total 



































































































TABLE IV. D. 10 

Amounts of Payments Per Minute 

to Independent Filmmakers Responding to 

AIVF Questionnaire, 1979 


Percentage Distribution of 

Independent Filmmaker Grantees of 

AFI and NEA, and Members of AIVF 

According to Their Sex 


Amount of Payment 

No. of 

of Total 







25 or less 







Not Specifying 





Total Respondents 





Applicants and Grantees of Selected Funding Sources 

American Film 

Media Arts 


Media Program 




























































Growth Rate 










Sources of Annual Income of 
Independent Filmmakers (1973) 

Sources of Income 


of Total 


Royalties from 
Filmmakers' Cooperative 




Royalties from Other 




Grants and Production 
Awards by Foundations 




Institutional Support 








Direct Income from Film 
Festival Awards, Private 
Sales, etc. 






*The total represents total annual income for 1,000 

Source: Sheldon Renan, The Economics of Independent 
Filmmakers, a report prepared for the Public Media 
Program of the Natibnal Endowment for the Arts, 
February 23, 1973. 



Independent producers are being asked to submit completed 
works to WNET/13, the New York metropolitan area's public 
television station, for another season of 13's showcase for in- 
dependent film and video, INDEPENDENT FOCUS, scheduled 
for airing locally beginning next January. 

Submission Procedures For Independent Focus 

Deadline For Submission is October 17, 1980. 

Required Material: For screening purposes by THIRTEEN, 3 A" 
cassettes are preferred, but 16mm prints will also be screen- 
ed. Works can be documentary, fiction, or animation, and of 
varying lengths, although the emphasis will be on works 
longer than 20 minutes. All works should have been produced 

Each submission must be accompanied by a single sheet of 
paper or index card with the producer's name, address, 
telephone number, title of film, format submitted, original for- 
mat, length and a two-line description of the work. Submis- 
sions should be forwarded to Liz Oliver, Series Producer, In- 
dependent Focus, WNET/THIRTEEN, 356 West 58 St., New 
York, NY 10019. 

Fees: The acquisition fee is $40 per minute, for which the sta- 
tion receives rights to two releases within two years from the 
initial broadcast 

An advisory panel composed of seven independent producers 
and programmers will work with the station in selecting 
works to be included. They are: 

Mirra Bank, a member of the board of ICAP. She was co-editor 
on the feature documentary Harlan County, U.S.A. 

Bob Gardner, Vice President of AIVF, whose feature-length 
dramatic film Clarence and Angel is scheduled to premiere at 
the Locarno Film Festival in Switzerland in August. 

George Griffen, who specializes in animations. 

Danny O'Neil, manager of Television programming for WNYC- 
TV, Channel 31, responsible for program development, ac- 
quisitions and production. 

Mark Rappaport, a member of the Steering Committee of the 
Independent Feature Project. 

Joel Sucher, who with his partner Steve Fischler operates 
Pacific Street Films. Their most recent production, The Free 
Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists, will be broadcast na- 
tionally over PBS this fall. 

Edin Velez, whose works range from abstract computer- 
generated tapes to video documentaries. 

Selection Process 

The panel will collaborate with the Series Producer 
throughout the screening process, and will be asked to 
recommend films for screening. During an initial screening 
period, September-October, the Series Producer will choose 
approximately 100 films for panel review. A list of all films, 
with descriptions, will be available to the panelists, and any 
panelist may request to screen any film or tape submitted. 

Beginning in November, the advisory panel will be divided 
into three screening groups, each of which will review about 
30 films and tapes. Each of these groups will select about 10 
films. After this round, the 30 or so selected films be be 
screened by the full panel. 

Once the panelists have seen all the remaining films, the 
works will be discussed with the Series Producer and the 
final 16 hours of programming will be confirmed. Should any 
legal or editorial questions arise regarding the recommended 
programs, they will be reviewed by appropriate executives at 
the station. Independent film and video makers whose works 
are selected will be notified in early December. 


AM I NORMAL? directed by Debra Franco and David Shepard, was among the shorts winning top honors In the American Film Festival. 



The following article was written by Stevenson Palfi, formerly 
Executive Director of the New Orleans Video Access Center. 

Although our experience at the New Orleans Video Access 
Center (NOV AC) is not unique, there are few independent pro- 
ducers around the country who have broadcast their pro- 
grams on commercial stations. NOVAC's experience may be 
helpful to other producers. 

When NOVAC was beginning to get off the ground in 1974, it 
was our intention to produce public affairs programs for 
cable television, which at that time hadn't been established in 
New Orleans. But when some of the people involved in its 
planning realized that cable was not going to be responsive 
to community needs, they delayed its establishment until a 
plan could be developed that would include public and com- 
munity use. Without cable television, NOVAC needed some 
king of broadcast outlet for programs (social action and com- 
munity affairs) we were planning. 

We approached the PBS affiliate here, but their response was 
similar to that of many PBS stations around the country: they 
didn't think that the half-inch black and white tapes which we 
were using at the time met their technical standards for 
broadcasting. So we approached the local UHF station — the 
local independent commercial station — with a program of 
the building of a new Mississippi river bridge in New Orleans, 
focusing on the displacement of poor people which would 
result if the bridge were built. The UHF station was receptive 
but also worried about the technical standards of our tapes. 
By pointing their studio cameras at a television monitor using 
a kinescope technique, we convinced them that half-inch 
videotape could be broadcast. 

Thus we were able to broadcast our half-hour documentary. 
That was the beginning of a mutually supportive relationship 
with commercial stations. We were a new group; our material 
was half-inch black and white. We needed air time and 
publicity. In return, we could help the station meet its FCC re- 
quirements that it air public affairs programs: a fair trade-off 
of mutual benefit. 

In 1975, NOVAC won five New Orleans Press Club awards for 
the bridge program and others. We had won more awards in 
TV documentary and public affairs than any other local sta- 
tion except for the CBS affiliate. Two significant factors — 
helping the local independent station meet FCC public affairs 
programming requirements and winning the five awards — 
paved the way for a series of programs (half-inch black and 
white) about community issues including housing problems 
in New Orleans, rape, and the dangers of co-signing loans. 

In 1977, NOVAC got a series of grants to produce a cultural 
program on jazz musicians entitled This Cat Can Play 
Anything, quoting Papa John Creach from the documentary. 
It was our first color documentary, and it enabled us to 
established relations with the PBS affiliate, for This Cat was 
the first independently-made program that station had ever 
broadcast. The show was rebroadcast on the ABC affiliate as 
a result of its PBS showing. It was the rebroadcast which 
enabled us to begin the most useful phase of our relationship 
with commercial stations. 

NOVAC offered This Cat free in exchange for certain 
technical corrections in the program and for our being able to 
make %-inch dubs from the perfected 2-inch master. The 
question of whether shows should be offered to the commer- 
cial stations for money or traded for in-kind services depends 

on the particularities of the situation. Since our equipment 
resources were relatively limited, we concluded that if we 
could get a larger amount in trade "(say $5,000 worth of 
facilities use versus $500 or $1,000 cash) the trade would be 
much more advantageous for us. 

Within 4 years our New Orleans Press Club awards numbered 
eleven, and This Cat had won five national awards and been 
accepted for broadcast over the PBS network. We thus had 
much greater leverage with the local independent station. We 
made a deal with them to use their professional 3 /4-inch 
editing facilities in exchange for their being able to broadcast 
a new color series entitled Being Poor in New Orleans. 

By using their editing equipment we were able to save at 
least $5,000 to $10,000 per program, which was much more 
than any cash payment from that small, million-person 
market. I should mention here that in every case, we main- 
tained the copyright so that programs could be rebroadcast 
on cable or in other markets. 

The NOVAC experience may be particularly illuminating now, 
because as a result of the advent of pay cable, there is a lot 
more activity in cable than there was four or even two years 
ago. Examples of this activity are the independent networks, 
like Ted Turner's out of Atlanta, broadcast through cable and 
over-the-air broadcasts. That means that a number of com- 
mercial avenues which independent producers can use have 
opened up. It's very important that producers are clear about 
what they want from those outlets, and how that compares to 
what others are getting and have gotten. 

Making mutually beneficial deals with commercial stations 
came about partly out of necessity, since the cable was 
delayed in coming to New Orleans and the PBS affiliate was 
always unreceptive to us, even after we had won over twenty- 
five different awards. But there were positive rea'sons for 
working with the commercial stations. It was in our best in- 
terests to have a large and general audience for these 
documentaries so that as many people as possible could 
become aware of the problems that affect the poor in New 
Orleans and see how that affects the rest of the city both 
socially and economically. 

In many cases, we were able to get much larger audiences by 
broadcasting on commercial stations. We did Arbitron ratings 
on a few of the shows and found that the audience was 
greater than that of any of the programs that had been broad- 
cast on the PBS affiliate. There are always drawbacks with 
using a cable system: you don't know how many people are 
watching a program, and it is difficult to publicize cable 
shows — partly because reviewers tend to expect cable 
shows to be ordinary and don't play them up. 

We did a lot of publicity in conjunction with the commercial 
stations which helped increase our audiences. Since we have 
been broadcasting for four or five years, we have developed 
an audience of loyal viewers and a mailing list of 1,200 locally 
and 2,000 nationally. 

The situation has changed greatly in the last couple of years 
because most groups are using 3 A-inch and most PBS af- 
filiates are receptive to broadcasting %-inch documentaries if 
they are of relatively good quality. But even today, it is not 
unusual for producers to have to establish other kinds of rela- 
tionships before being able to establish anything with their 
PBS affiliate. -|9 



CREW CHIEF Needed w/ driver's license, 
familiarity w/ 16mm projection, ability to 
manage small crew in new locations, 
references; to present 50-60 screenings from 
June-September. 30 hrs./wk, $250/wk. Contact 
IMMEDIATELY: Steve Dobi, Filmobile, Dept. 
of Cultural Affairs, 2 Columbus Circle, NY NY 
10019, (212)974-1150. 

at Latino TV Broadcasting Service/Center for 
Communications Studies, a youth employ- 
ment training program. Requires 3-5 yrs ex- 
perience in film/TV production for position 
overseeing all training activities for interns, 
hiring instructors, and working on curriculum. 
$15,000 salary. Contact Myrta Varas, (212) 

tion waiver available to MFA candidates in 
filmmaking at Montclair State College. Must 
be familiar w/ 16mm and Super-8 equipment. 
Deadline for application July 31. Send letter & 
resume to William McCreath, Fine Arts Dept., 
Montclair State College, Upper Montclair NJ 

of Exhibition Services — develops film pro- 
grams, series & artist appearances in 
cooperation w/ regional organizations. Direc- 
tor of Television & Video Services — 
develops TV/video exhibition programs in 
Washington DC, informational material & 
distribution networks. Both positions are im- 
portant program responsibilities requiring ex- 
perienced, imaginative individuals. For more 
info contact Jean Firstenberg or Marcia 
Johnston, American Film Institute, Kennedy 
Center for the Performing Arts, Washington 
DC 20566, (202) 828-4000. 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR position has opened 
at Bay Area Video Coalition thanks to an 
18-month CPB Women's Training Grant. Will 
assist Executive Director in fundraising & 
general administration. Contact BAVC, 2940 
16 St. room 200, San Francisco CA 94103, 
(415) 861-3282. 

THE INDEPENDENT is planning to accept 
paid.advertising. We are looking for applicants 
who are familiar with the independent com- 
munity and the industries that serve it. Repre- 
sentative will identify interested advertisers, 
sell ads on a regular basis and maintain per- 
tinent fiscal records. This position will be paid 
on a commission basis, percentage to be neg- 
otiated. For more information, contact Judy 
Ray at FIVF, (212) 473-3400 after August 1 1 . 

documentary film projects. Must have ex- 
perience writing proposals. Send resume to 
Archive Film Prods., 660 Madison Ave., NY NY 

THE VIDEO GUIDE needs people to write 
articles. Send queries to Satellite Video Ex- 
change Society, 261 Powell St., Vancouver 
BC, V6A 1G3 Canada. 


VOLUNTEER WANTED to do 10-15 hrs/wk 
light clerical work in exchange for free access 
to darkroom, course in screenwriting, acting 
&/or directing, good work experience. Contact 
Mary Guzzy, Women's Interart Center, 549 
West 52 St., NY NY 10019, (212) 246-1050, 
10am-6 pm Mon-Fri. 

FILM PRODUCTION company seeks research- 
er to work on spec for grant-funded film 
series. Must be self-motivated, enjoy library 
research, have interviewing skills. Send 
resume to Low Sulphur Prods., 355 West 85 
St., NY NY 10024. 

APPRENTICES WANTED: women interested 
in learning how to plan a film screening & use 
projection equipment, particularly those in- 
terested in community organizing. Contact 
Greta Schiller, Women Make Movies, 257 
West 19 St., NY NY 10011, (212) 929-6477. 

learn editing. Will work as editing assistant 
for low or no pay. Have done synching. 
Available July 1. Contact Erika Gottfried, (212) 
875-9722, 788-7782. 

SOUNDMAN AVAILABLE w/ own equipment. 
Contact George Nugent, 1078 Third Ave., NY 
NY 10021. 

PRODUCTION ASSISTANT available during 
summer months. Contact Ina Stone, (212) 

POSITION WANTED: lighting cameraman, 
from Europe. Reasonable rates. Call Igor, 
(212) 249-0416. 

COMPOSER/EDITOR of original film music 
can enhance continuity & emotional impact of 
your film. Contact Steven Saltzman, (617) 

CAMERAPERSON WANTED to collaborate on 
short 2-character film. Contact Charles Boyle, 
(617) 277-7558. 


6-20, Westbrook College, Portland ME. S-8 
filmmaking, video production, media history & 
aesthetics, visiting lecturers. Contact Huey, 
Maine Alliance of Media Arts, 4320 Station A, 
Portland ME 04101, (207) 773-1130. 

Synapse, will feature Wayne Godwin from the 
PTV-2 "Red Network". For more info contact 
Alex Swan, Synapse Broadcast Workshop, 
103 College PI., Syracuse NY 13210, (315) 

VIDEOSPACE 1980, July 25-27, Seattle WA: a 
consumer show highlighting the latest in 
video technology & hardware. Write Michael 
Gaines, Rising Star Prod., PO Box 17209, 
Seattle WA 98107. 

FILM, July 28-Aug. 1, Rochester NY, with 
David Shapiro. For info contact Visual Studies 
Workshop, 31 Prince St., Rochester NY 14607, 
(716) 442-8676. 

FILM HISTORY, July 28-Aug. 1, Rochester NY, 
with Hollis Frampton. Contact Visual Studies 
Workshop, 31 Prince St., Rochester NY 14607, 
(716) 442-8676. 

posals to obtain funding for women's educa- 
tional equity projects, open to organizations & 
individuals w/no previously funded proposal, 
are being held in 20 US cities between March 
& August 1980. For details contact Lisa 
Hunter, Far West Laboratory, 1855 Folsom 
St., San Francisco CA 94103, (414) 565-3110. 

intermediate-level technicians, covering 
power & electrical safety, motion picture 
equipment, video signal standards & 
magnetic audio formats, will be held in 
Baltimore July 17-19, Atlanta Aug. 7-9, 
Chicago Aug. 21-23, Kansas City Sept. 11-13, 
Dallas Oct. 2-4, Los Angeles Oct. 23-25, San 
Francisco Oct. 30-Nov. 1, & Portland Nov. 
20-22. Contact Association of Audiovisual 
Technicians, PO Box 9716, Denver CO 80209, 
(303) 733-3137. 

SUMMER INSTITUTE in the Making & 
Understanding of Film/Media, Aug. 4-22. For 
info contact Gerald O'Grady, Center for Media 
Study, 101 Wende Hall, SUNY, Buffalo NY 
14214, (716) 831-2426. 

Innovation, Accessibility & Influences is the 

title of the 34th Annual University Film 
Association Conference, Aug. 9-13. Contact 
Robert E. Davis, Dept. of RadiorTV/Film, 
University of Texas, Austin TX 78712, (512) 

Video Teachers, Aug. 11-22, NYC & Holly- 
wood. For info contact George Wallach, DGA, 
110 West 57 St., NY NY 10019, (212) 581-0370; 
or David Shepard, DGA, 7950 Sunset Blvd., 
Hollywood CA 90046, (213) 463-5151. 

CINECON 16, Aug. 29-Sept. 1, Los Angeles, 
sponsored by Society for Cinephiles. Contact 
Marty Kearns, PO Box 543, N. Hollywood CA, 
(213) 761-0567 (before 8 pm PDT). 

Workshops: Filmmakers on Film, screenings 
& discussions every Wednesday in July, $3.50 
each, $15 the series. Elements of Studio Pro- 
duction: introduction to basic theory & opera- 
tions through practical exercises in Lighting 
(Aug. 5-7, 6-9 pm), Camera (Aug. 12-14, 6-9 
pm), Audio (Aug. 19-21, 6-9 pm). $110 for all 9 
sessions, $40 for 3. Audition/Portfolio 
Videotapes for Performers: actors, come- 
dians, musicians, newscasters & models can 
obtain a 20-minute % " color videocassette of 
their work at a reasonable cost on Wed. July 
23 or Thurs. Aug. 7. For info on any of these 3 
programs contact YF/VA, 4 Rivington St., NY 
NY 10002, (212) 673-9361. 

dialogues w/Black filmmakers from Fri., 7/25 
-Tues., 7/29. 5 screenings w/Black indie, film- 
makers will be held at a different community 
site, followed by discussions. Filmmakers in- 
clude Alonzo Crawford, Woodie King, Jr., Perry 
Green, Charles Lane, Ayoka Chenzira & 


Monica Freeman. The Black Filmmaker Foun- 
dation is a non-profit org. established to sup- 
port the independently produced work of 
Black filmmakers & video artists. The Founda- 
tion sponsors programs & services designed 
to facilitate and encourage this work and ac- 
tivities which will promote their public 
recognition. Contact: Terrir Williams for loca- 
tions, dates and times at (212) 866-3411 or 
write BFF, 79 Madison Ave., Suite 906, NY, NY 


The ORPHEUM THEATRE is presenting an 
ongoing independent 16mm Filmmakers' 
Festival each Monday evening at 7:30 pm. 
Films will be shown on a first-come first- 
served basis in order of entry. For entry form 
write Langsford/Goldberg, Filmmakers' 
Festival, 45 Fifth Ave., NY NY 10003. 

21-23, seeks entries of film/video works pro- 
duced by Hispanics or having a Hispanic- 
related theme. Entry deadline July 15. For 
more info write San Antonio CineFestival, 
Oblate College of the Southwest, 285 Oblate 
Dr., San Antonio TX 78216 or call Adan 
Medrano at (512) 736-1685. 

info contact Carol Duke, Pacific Northwest 
Arts & Crafts Assn., 376 Bellevue Sq., Bellevue 
WA 98004, (206) 454-2509. 

feature Yakima Canutt & Ben Johnson. Write 
MFF, 100 N. Main Bldg., suite 2504, Memphis 
TN 38103. 

previewing 16/35mm films & %" videocasset- 
tes. For application forms contact Richard Jett 
(tapes) or Mark Fishkin (films) at Mill Valley 
Film Festival, 131 D Camino Alto, Mill Valley 
CA 94941, (415) 383-5256. 

BRAZIL, Aug. 4-9, is accepting entries through 
July 15. Contact Abrao Berman, Center of 
Cinema Studies, Rua Estados Unidos 2240, 
Sao Paulo 01422 Brazil. 

SUPER-8 CINEMA, Aug. 19-27, seeks entries. 
For info contact Julio Neri, Latin Touch, 
Avenida Rio de Janeiro, Edificio Lorenal B, 
Apt. 52, Chuao, Caracas, Venezuela. 

TY VIDEO is looking for tapes produced by 
community artists about the world they live in, 
to be exhibited & broadcast in NY in Oct. & 
Nov. Entry deadline July 31, $10 fee. For ap- 
plication, contact Festival 80, Downtown Com- 
munity TV Center, 87 Lafayette St., NY NY 

ART IN THE NORTHWEST, Aug. 14-17, offers 
$1,600 in awards for films & tapes completed 
since Aug. 1, 1979 by residents of OR, WA, ID, 
MT, AK & BC. Entry deadline July 31. For entry 
forms write Northwest Film & Video Festival. 

Northwest Film Study Center, Portland Art 
Museum, 1219 SW Park, Portland OR 97205. 

will be sponsored by the Canadian Assoc, for 
Young Children. Deadline July 15. For info 
contact R. G. Koep, Faculty of Education, 
University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Dr., 
Alberta T1K 3M4 Canada. 

For info contact PO Box 247, Telluride CO 
82435, (303) 728-4401. 

19-26, is accepting entries through Sept. 1. 
For info contact SFVF, PO Box 99402, San 
Francisco CA 94109, (415) 285-2390. 

3rd Annual TOKYO VIDEO FESTIVAL seeks 
US entries of 20 min. or less in length, in Vz" 
EIAJ, VHS or Beta or 3 A" U-type formats. 
Entry along w/a brief biography of the pro- 
ducer should be sent by Aug. 15 to JVC Video 
Festival, c/o Burson-Marsteller, 866 Third 
Ave., NY NY 10022; for entry forms or more 
info, call John Bailey or Rick Sacks at (212) 

INTERCOM '80's entry deadline has passed, 
but indies are invited to witness the awarding 
of the Hugos for the year's best industrial & 
informational films & tapes at the Awards 
Banquet on Sept. 12. For info contact Cinema/ 
Chicago, 415 North Dearborn St., Chicago IL 
60610, (312) 644-3400. 

Sept. 12-21. For info contact FldC, 
Secretariado, Rua Castilho 61, 2-Dto, 1200, 
Lisbon, Portugal. 

petitive festival of TV programs produced for 
or about children, offers over $8,000 in prizes 
& is accepting entries through Sept. 12. For 
info contact MIFED, Largo Domodossola 1, 
20145 Milano, Italy, telephone 46.78. 

info contact Claudine Thoridnet, GPO Box 354, 
Adelaide, S. Australia, 5001. 

IRISH FILM FESTIVAL will be held sometime 
this fall. For info contact Ronnie Saunders, 
Irish Film Theatre, St. Stevens Green House, 
Earls Fort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland. 

VALLADOLID, Oct. 17-25, will include a cycle 
of American independent films. For info con- 
tact Joy Pereths, Independent Feature Proj- 
ect, 80 East 11 St., NY NY 10003, (212) 

LEIPZIG FILM FESTIVAL, Nov. 21-28. For info 
contact Ronald Trisch, Christburger Strasse 
38, 1055 Berlin, West Germany. 

ATHENS VIDEO FESTIVAL, Oct. 23-25, seeks 
%" cassettes & Vz" reel-to-reel tapes in 
categories of Video Art, Video Drama, Docu- 
mentary & Educational Video, completed be- 
tween Jan. '79 & Sept. '80. Deadline Sept. 26. 
For info contact AVF, Box 388, Athens OH 
45701, (614) 594-6888. 

VIDEO 80: "An international salon for the 
work of independent producers" is scheduled 
for November 4-23 in Rome. It will be held 
under the auspices of the Cultural Depart- 
ment of the City of Rome. The event will ac- 
commodate virtually all subjects and styles 
so long as the material has been produced 
originally on videotape. Individual screening 
time is limited to 1 Vz hours and material must 
be presented on % " U-matic cassettes. Par- 
ticipation costs must be borne by individual 
participants. In addition to independent pro- 
ducers from Europe, Japan, and North 
America, representatives of broadcasting 
organizations will be invited as well as the 
general public. It is therefore an opportunity 
to show work to potential buyers. Those in- 
terested should contact Video 80's chairman 
as soon as possible: Alessandro Silj, Via della 
Croce 78-A, 0187 Rome, Italy. 


FIRST RUN FEATURES offers a theatrical 
booking service for independently produced & 
distributed feature-length films on a nation- 
wide basis. All promotion & publicity is the 
responsibility of the filmmaker. Founding 
films include Joe & Maxi, Northern Lights, 
The Wobblies, The War At Home. Contact 
FRF, 419 Park Ave. South, NY NY 10016, (212) 

REAL ART WAYS wants info on filmmakers & 
their work, distributors, & availability for 
preview. Send material to Jon Di Benedetto, 
Real Art Ways, 197 Asylum St., Box 3313, 
Hartford CT 06103. 

TION CENTER is now screening documen- 
taries for its first national public TV distribu- 
tion package, with funding from NEA. Future 
series may include animation, experimental & 
narrative works. After a deduction to meet 
satellite costs of about $6 per minute, 75% of 
income will be paid directly to the producers. 
IFVDC projects a return of over $1 million to 
independents in its 1st 4 years. Before sub- 
mitting work, contact Douglas Cruickshank, 
Acquisitions Coordinator, IFVDC, PO Box 
6060, Boulder CO 80306, (303) 469-5234. 

organizing a women's film series for fall 1980. 
High-quality, realistic films depicting positive 
images of women & gay people are sought. 
Cost is a factor, as film programs would be 
used as benefits for feminist groups. Contact 
Diane S. Westerback, Feminist Union Films, 
79 Lyon St., New Haven CT 06511. 

SYNAPSE needs 4 broadcast-quality 
videotapes, 25-28 minutes in length, to com- 
plete a 13-week series for public TV. Subject 
matter: portraiture, lifestyles, aesthetic con- 
cerns. Send written description, background 
info to Henry Baker, 103 College Place, 
Syracuase NY 13210. 

series offers a $400 honorarium & is open to 



all independent/personal filmmakers. For 
details contact Larry Kardisk, (212) 956-7514. 

new a/v library in Tokyo. Address inquiries to 
the Nippon Audio/Visual Library, 6-27-27, Shin- 
juku, Ku Toyko, 160 Japan. 

screening. Contact Joyce Morgan, Women's 
Center, Cedar Crest College, Allentown PA 

& distributors of non-theatrical educational/ 
children's entertainment/business training 
films, is seeking 16mm educational films. 
Contact Bill Mokin, Arthur Mokin Prods., 17 
West 60 St., NY NY 10023, (212) 757-4868. 

on cable TV. No funds available yet. Contact 
Cyndi Marland, Bay Cable TV, (617) 748-2400. 

MANUSHI FILM FORUM is being organized in 
India as a regular screening/discussion series 
of films dealing w/women's issues. Informa- 
tion about films made by women & sugges- 
tions to help organize the Forum should be 
sent to C-1/202 Lajpat Nagar 1, New Delhi 
110024, India. 

filmmakers interested in exhibiting their work 
or participating in visiting lectureships. Send 
resume, filmography etc. to David Woods, 
School of Design, Hull College, Queens 
Gardens, Hull HU1 3DH, England. 

OASIS wants films to review for screening. 
Send film w/SASE to LAIFO, Arlene Zeichner, 
2020 S. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles CA 

energy, art, ecology & other contemporary 
subjects wanted. Write Barbara Cole, 441 2-A 
Catlin Circle, Carpinteria CA 93013. 

ICAP DISTRIBUTES independent film & video 
to cable TV & returns 75% of payment receiv- 
ed from cablecasting to the producer. 
Especially interested in short shorts, & films 
for children & teenagers. Send descriptions, 
promo material to ICAP, 625 Broadway, NY 
NY 10012, (212) 533-9180. 

FILMS WANTED: Re: Artists Bring the World 
Together, a performing and fine arts program 
depicting the cultural heritage of many lands. 
Held April '81 at the United Nations & June 
'81 at Lincoln Center. Excell. story line. Call 
Julie Paige or Ray Sumpf at (212) 796-1470 or 
write: Coliseum Arts Unlimited, 5900 Arling- 
ton Avenue, Riverdale NY 10471. 


Approach to Copyright, Option Agreements & 
Distribution Contracts for Independent Pro- 
ducers by Michael F. Mayer. Includes negotia- 
tion strategies, review of contract terms, 
glossary of relevant terminology. May be pur- 
chased at Young Filmakers/Video Arts for 
$2.50 or ordered by mail for $3.50 postpaid 
from YF/VA, 4 Rivington St., NY NY 10002. 

catalogue w/ info on 25 films on energy, the 
environment & the planet is available on re- 
quest. Contact Green Mountain Post Films, 
PO Box 229, Turners Falls MA 01376, (413) 


TELEVISION, a series of essays on the future 
of ptv, is available free from The National 
News Council, One Lincoln Plaza, NY NY 

Brown discusses the media reform movement 
& the need for government regulation of the 
cable industry. Published by the United 
Church of Christ's Pilgrim Press; $4.95 at 

guide for communities that want to announce 
their own communications needs & plan their 
own cable communications services. Free 
from the Cable Communications Board, Dept. 
of Administration, State of Minnesota, 500 
Rice St., St. Paul MN 55103. 

ray features concise definitions of words & 
phrases related to media law, appendix of 
specific cases & related terms. $7.35 from 
University Press of America, Washington DC. 

Guide for Educators & Librarians by Jerome 
K. Miller explains the new law & its pitfalls in 
lay person's language. $10 from American 
Library Association, Chicago IL. 

WIDE ANGLE is a quarterly film journal deal- 
ing w/ the theory, criticism & practice of film- 
making, video & animation. Includes festival 
reports & book reviews. US & Canada, $8/yr; 
overseas, $10/yr; institutions, $15/yr. Ohio 
University Press, Wide Angle, Scott Quad, 
Athens OH 45701. 

DATIONS lists over 1,000 foundations w/ 
assets of over $1 million or grants of more 
than $100,000. Tells where they grant, when to 
approach them, whether they make general 
operating or building grants, to whom you 
should write etc. $10 from Public Service 
Materials Center, 415 Lexington Ave., NY NY 

RENTALS, edited by Kathleen Weaver, con- 
tains 14,000 title entries including distributor 
& rental price. $21.25 postpaid (+ $1.20 sales 
tax in California) from Reel Research, Box 
6037, Albany CA 94706. 

CATALOG II is a listing of recent f/v works 
available for rental or sale from New York 
State producers who were assisted by Young 
Filmakers/Video Arts. Available for $1 postage 
& handling from the Center for Arts Informa- 
tion, 625 Broadway, 9th floor, NY NY 10012. 

tions: Technology & Change, $3.50 EFLA 
members/$4.50 non-members; Crime & 
Justice in America, $2.25/3.25; Death & Dying, 
$2.25/3.25; Energy & the Way We Live, $3/4; 
Popular Culture, $2.50/3.50. Also Film Library 
Administration Bibliography, $3/4. Include $1 
for postage. Order from Educational Film 
Library Association, 43 West 61 St., NY NY 

WOMEN IN FOCUS by Jeanne Betancourt 
features capsule bios & filmographies of 
noted feminist filmmakers, reviews of classic 
feminist shorts & features, indices & 
bibliography. Cloth cover $6.95 EFLA 
members/8.95 non-members; paper $4.95/6.95; 
$1 postage. Educational Film Library Associa- 
tion, 43 West 61 St., NY NY 10023. 

include: AFI Guide to College Courses in Film 
& TV, $8.75 AFI members/$11 non-members; 
The Education of the Filmmaker An Interna- 
tional View, $5.25/7.70; Catalog of Holdings: 
The AFI Collection & the United Artists Collec- 
tion at the Library of Congress, $5.75 AFI, 
UDA & SCS members/7.25 non-members; Ac- 
cess — Film & Video Equipment: A Directory, 
$2; National Survey of Film & TV Higher 
Education: Report of Findings, $1; Film in the 
Classroom, $5.25; Hal in the Classroom: 
Science Fiction Films, $4.75. All prices in- 
clude postage. Order from American Film In- 
stitute, NES Publications, J. F. Kennedy 
Center, Washington DC 20566. 

PANORAMA, monthly magazine w/ feature 
articles on programming, TV & society, tech- 
nical innovations & TV personalities. $12/yr 
from Panorama, Box 650, Radnor PA 19088. 

VIDEOPLAY: bimonthly home video magazine, 
including reviews of hardware, sources of 
videocassettes, related feature articles. $6/yr 
from OS. Tepfer Publishing, 51 Sugar Hollow 
Rd., Danbury CT 06810. 

WATCH: TV in the 80's is a monthly w/ feature 
articles on new innovations in video 
technology, short news notes, reviews of 
books & programs. $12/yr from Watch, PO 
Box 4305, Denver CO 80204. 

MEDIA WOMAN is a new magazine high- 
lighting the achievement of professional 
women in the film/radio/TV industries, in- 
cluding alternative & independent producers. 
For more info write PO Box 5296. Santa 
Monica CA 90405. 

over 200 titles in 18 subject areas w/ cross- 
referenced subject index available free from 
UNIFILM, 419 Park Ave. South, NY NY 10016 
or Bryant St., San Francisco CA 94103. 

Glossary of Film Terms, $5; Bibliography of 
Theses & Dissertations on Film, 1916-1979, 
$6.50; Influence of World Cinema on the 
Education & Training of Film/TV Directors & 
Communicators, $7.50. Add 75c for First 
Class, $1.50 Air Mail. For orders, other 
publications, & bulk rates contact Journal of 
the University Film Association, School of 
Communication, Agnes Arnold Hall, Univer- 
sity of Houston, Houston TX 77004, (713) 


funded by NEA, will award $340,000 in grants 
ranging from $500 to $10,000 for film 
(16/35mm) & video projects. Deadline Sept. 1. 
For application write Independent Filmmaker 
Program G, American Film Institute, 501 
Doheny Rd., Beverly Hills CA 90210. 

WOMEN AT WORK Broadcast Awards for pro- 
grams/reportage on working women is accept- 
ing nominations from producers, reporters & 
officials from all US radio & TV stations. 
Deadline Sept. 1. For details contact Sandi 
Risser, (202) 466-6770. 

10, will begin accepting applications as of 
Aug. 5 & will close Sept. 12. Contact Corpora- 
tion for Public Broadcasting, Office of Train- 
ing & Development, Washington DC, (202) 


clude Sept. 12 for Radio/Film/Video Produc- 
tion, Oct. 8 for In Residence/Workshop, Oct. 
15 for Video Artist Fellowship. For info con- 
tact Media Arts, National Endowment for the 
Arts, 2401 E St. NW, Washington DC 20506. 

WOMEN MAKE MOVIES will accept a limited 
number of f/v proposals to submit w/ their ap- 
plications to NEA, NEH, NYSCA & NYSCH. 
Producers can present their proposals at 
WMM's December & June membership 
meetings. WMM also acts as a tax-exempt 
conduit for fundraising by women filmmakers, 
for an administration/accounting charge of 
10% of the grant. For details contact WMM, 
257 West 19 St., NY NY 10011, (212) 929-6477. 

award grants up to $1,500 to individual video 
artists to fund projects that will benefit the 
producer's community, neighborhood or 
group. Deadline Sept. 30. For application con- 
tact Downtown Community TV Center, 87 
Lafayette St., NY NY 10013, (212) 966-4510. 

DUPONT-COLUMBIA AWARD of $20,000 will 
be given for the best independently-produced 
news/public affairs program broadcast be- 
tween July 1, 1979 & June 30, 1980. This 
largest cash prize in broadcast journalism will 
be shared by the producer & the station/net- 
work first airing the program, to finance the 
development of more indie productions. For 
info contact Marvin Barrett, Columbia Univer- 
sity, NY NY 10027. 

CHANGE PROGRAM, open to all visual 
artists, organizes direct swaps of studio & liv- 
ing space internationally. Register now for 
holiday, work periods or sabbatical year. Con- 
tact Deborah Gardner, Box 146, 201 Varick St., 
NY NY 10014, (212) 929-6688. 

gram offers paid internships to study motion 
picture or TV direction under their auspices. 
Send works to Jan Haag, AFI, 501 Doheny 
Rd., Beverly Hills CA 90210. 

SION ENGINEERS offers scholarships to grad 
& undergrad students taking courses in the 
science or technology of TV. Write SMPTE, 
862 Scarsdale Ave., Scarsdale NY 10583. 

seeks proposals for its Mini-Grant Program, 
which promotes & aids student information 
projects on any aspect of post-secondary 
education. Write Mini-Grant Program, NSEF, 
2000 P St. NW, suite 305, Washington DC 

WOMEN ARTISTS qualify as individual en- 
trepreneurs to use the free services of the 
American Women's Economic Development 
Corporation, including advertising, promotion, 
accounting systems, budgeting, finance, con- 
tracts, insurance, publicity, marketing, import- 
export & legal advice. Contact AWED, 1270 
Ave. of the Americas, NY NY 10020, (212) 

artists in meeting expenses incurred in 
preparation of work for scheduled exhibition 
in non-commercial spaces. For info write 
CVA, 105 Hudson St., NY NY 10013. 

AMERICA offers scholarships & grants for 
college-level audiovisual students. Write 
William Wittich, 3518 Cahuenga Blvd. W., 
suite 313, Hollywood CA 90068. 


CAVEAT EMPTOR: A Nagra 4.2L with the 
serial number 92293 was stolen on June 1. 
The owner has reason to believe that the 
thieves will try to dispose of it through the in- 
dependent community. If someone tries to 
sell you this piece of equipment, please con- 
tact Kathleen King, Box 4%, Grand Central 
Station, NY NY 10163, (212) 431-7484. 

FOR SALE: Beaulieu R-16 camera with 12-120 
Angenieux lens, guaranteed excellent condi- 
tion. Includes 200' mag, 2 batteries 
w/charger, pilotone generator for cable sync, 
custom-built barney, Halliburton case; power 
zoom & automatic exposure which can be 
overriden. Must sell; best offer. Contact Paul 
Schneider, (212) 533-3894. 

FOR SALE: darkroom equipment: Beseler 67 
CXL w/color & b/w heads, 35mm & 2 1 A poten- 
tial; power stabilizer; Gralab 500 timer; 50mm 
2.8 El Nikor lens; other accessories. All still in 
original boxes, unused. Reasonable prices. 
Contact Rich Schmiechen, (212) 691-7497. 

FOR RENT: Complete editing facilities in- 
cluding 6-plate Steenbeck, Nagra 4.2 and 
sound accessories available in Western 
Massachusetts area. Contact Green Mountain 
Post Films, P.O. Box 229, Turners Falls, MA 
01376, (413) 863-8248. 

FOR RENT: Brand new 16mm, 35mm, 6-plate 
Steenbeck for $650 per month. Call (212) 
533-7157 or 533-6561. 

FOR SALE: H-16 Bolex w/2 lenses, Moviola 
UL20cS, Uhler RE36-16 optical printer, Arri MB, 
28, 50, 75, 90 Macro, 300 Kilfit, 5 mags, ac- 
cessories. Crystal Frezzi, 12-120 Ang, 5CP 
Plc4 mags, CP case & accessories. Editing 
table, Moviscop, Sony 1610, VO-3800, 10mm 
Zwitar lens. Contact George Nugent, 1078 
Third Ave., NY NY 10021. 

FOR RENT: 6-plate Steenbeck, complete 
editing facilities, video equipment. Sound 
transfers also available. Contact George 
Nugent, 1078 Third Ave., NY NY 10021. 

EDITING FACILITIES for rent: 8-plate KEM in 
fully-equipped editing room w/24-hour access, 
in NYU area. Immediate access to sound 
transfers from Va " to mag track, or from mag 
track to mag track. Contact Jacki Ochs, (212) 

WANTED: used Vi " videotapes. Will negotiate 
prices. Call Jeff, (212) 233-5851. 

SPACE WANTED for editing room & office in 
downtown Manhattan. 800+ square feet. 
Needed in August, no later than September 1. 
Contact Steve Fischler or Joel Sucher at (212) 

available. Fully-equipped rooms, 24-hour ac- 
cess in security building, 2 6-plate 
Steenbecks, 6-plate Moviola flatbed, sound 
transfers from Va " to 16mm & 35mm mag, nar- 
ration recording, extensive sound effects 
library, interlock screening room. Long-term 
Moviola rental in tri-state area, 3 month 
minimum. Contact Cinetudes Film Prods. 
Ltd., 377 Broadway, NY NY 10013, (212) 












O — 














P O 

> o 




















when calls 

leck to: 
ew York, 








ent in i 
to you 







r work 

co O 






.E Q) 








£ >; 





^ o 

CD *- 




CD "O 

~ CO 

03 cti 



O Z5 

^ o 









solved in 
FILE: is 


















those in' 







C O 

S3 i5 

- Q. 


■^ co 

CO <D 

.E ro 

c "O 

I > 

"". O) 

£ w 


"O sz 

*-- O 

CO !_ 

E P 

CD £ > 




E -5 

CO "O 

c co 



5 S 

00 CD 

-£ o 

O co 

$ >^ 

«- 00 

c R 



-^ Q. 

CO H- 

o — 

^ o 

CD ~ 00 

D) ■'S. CD 

' T3 
















-< 33 

O m 

c <: 

D m 
5 m 



"0 m 

m -H 

Z m 


m O 


O m 


I- o 

> en 

£ S 

r - Z! 


jD "^ 


o 1 

C : 

m : 
en : 



















O C 

3 = 

Q. O 



□ o o 3 

| co co 

. 2 CD 3 



g o 

513 ;^ 

= 3 













to _ 








S.3 £ 











ST w 

• — 




















<d a. 







■0 =: 

■3 2. 

CD *" 
(A (I> 











• <D 










=r c 




















55" "o 










•• 0. 

0> Q> 












O 03 











3 s- 

1 § 


CD - 




















— ► 







2 3 

n" O 














a. -1 




• i 










2 § 







— t. 



Cfl » 









» «. 






























CT <D 



O Q. 
X — 

4* • 


T3 fz 

*•*-. i 

-.,■ » 

Volume 3 IMumloer 6 

' ™^**iw 


«$■ •, 




Cannes Film Festival 
"La Camera D'Or ' Award 

For the best first directed 35mm feature film: 

1979 -"Northern Lights" 

by John Hanson and Rob NUsson 

1978 -"Alambrista" 

by Robert Young 

Both films were shot in 16mm. 
The 35mm blow-ups were made by Du Art. 

After years of intensive research and test- 
ing, DuArt has perfected the skill, the 
equipment and the expertise of 16mm blow- 
ups. Using our sophisticated computer 
equipment and unique knowledge, we liter- 
ally live with the film on scene-by-scene 
basis. It becomes a personal and intimate 
relationship between people, film and com- 
puter technology. 

Free. To help film makers, we have pre- 
pared a brochure explaining recommended 

practices of shooting 16mm for blow-up to 
35mm. Write or call and we'll gladly send 
you a copy. If you need assistance in plan- 
ning your next production, feel free to call 
Irwin Young or Paul Kaufman. 




245 West 55th Street New York, New York 10019 
(212) Plaza 7-4580 


I Independent: 

VOL.3 N0.6 

THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tonkonow, Assistant Director, Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director; Media Works: Lillian Jimenez, 
Project Director 


BUSINESS By Mitchell W. Block 


Invitation For Proposals 


By Alison Dundes 


By Maeve Druesne 


By Alan Mitosky 


DORIS CHASE on her work in film 

and video 

By Judy Ray 


Eloise Payne 

Independent Anthology 

Program Fund 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

1111 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Eloise: 

I am writing to express my disagreement with your policy 
of excluding any film that has been broadcast from the 
Anthology competition. Most independent filmmakers have 
made an effort to have their work broadcast. In my own 
case, I have had two of my films shown over WETA's local 
program, "Independent View". The audience for this 
program was small, and restricted to WETA's broadcast 
area. Payment was also minimal ($8 per minute), but most 
of us were happy to have our films on television for the 
local exposure, the encouragement it gave to the 
independent film community, and because we believe a local 
broadcast enhances a film's chance of being broadcast 
nationally. Now we have your invitation for proposals 
(which incidentally has no statement of ineligibility because 
of prior broadcast) and the chance for a national audience 
in a well-funded series. 

It is really unfair to have our work penalized because of 
such limited broadcast. If I had known about the CPB 
restriction, I never would have gone ahead with the WETA 
broadcast. I know that many other filmmakers will be in 
my position. It may be that you wish to encourage new 
productions, but the invitation indicates that completed 

work is eligible. You can bet that if it is a completed work, 
the filmmaker has done his best to have it broadcast, and if 
the film is of any quality, it has probably been shown on a 
PBS station. But that shouldn't penalize the film. It should 
indicate its potential value for a national show. 

Maybe you can restrict completed works to those made after 
a certain date or exclude films that have been broadcast to a 
large percentage of the PBS network, but I think that it is 
unfair to be ineligible for the Anthology competition because 
of local or even regional broadcast. You'd better get the 
word out fast, because you're going to have a lot of angry 
filmmakers who will spend days on your application only to 
find their film disqualified because of something that isn't 
even mentioned in the guidelines. 

Tom Davenport 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor and are 
open to the public. The AIVF/FIVF Board of Directors encourages active member- 
ship participation and welcomes discussion of important issues. In order to be on 
the agenda contact Jack Willis, chairperson, two weeks in advance of meetina at 
(212) 921-7020. 

The next two meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, October 7th and November 4th. 
Both will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. Dates and times, however, are subject to last 
minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to confirm. 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treasurer; 
Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex Officio. Stew Bird; Robert Gard- 
ner, Vice-President; Kathy Kline, Secretary; Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane 
Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, Chairperson. 



This year marked the twenty-sixth annual Flaherty Film 
Seminar. Held at Wells College in Aurora, New York, the 
seminar opened August 16. It is difficult to describe the 
seminar. For starters, it is unlike any film festival I have at- 
tended. The name "seminar" might put off those uninformed, 
who anticipate something like an advanced college seminar 
taken long ago, in which some gruff professor talks down to 
students sitting around a table soaking up grains of wisdom. 

The seminar generates little press coverage. However, every 
spring, notices begin to appear in the film trades asking film- 
makers to submit films. These coupled with the energy of the 
annual programmers generate hundreds of previews (in 16mm 
or 35mm film, not video, thank you). 

The seminar, like the Telluride Festival, is held in a facility 
where everyone can mix. Unlike Telluride, the seminar has 
never had more than 125 participants. (Filmmakers, 
educators, film libraries, students and others interested in 
films attend the seminar.) In addition, all of the Seminar par- 
ticipants are encouraged to eat their meals together. Multiple 
screenings do not take place. Only one film is screened at a 
time, and each participant is expected to attend all of the 
screenings. Filmmakers in attendance are not permitted to 
screen their films late at night. Only films selected by the film 
programmer may be shown. 

Occasionally, one filmmaker has been spotlighted, and many 
of their films are screened. In the past, Joris Ivens and Jean 
Rouch have been thus honored. The seminar has tended to 
focus on social documentaries; however, fictional shorts, 
features, animation and other genres are also screened. This 
year the programmer, John Katz, selected works which in- 
cluded many independent features from around the world, in 
addition to documentaries and other kinds of films. 

I have attended Flaherty Film Seminars for a number of years 
both as a filmmaker and as an individual interested in film- 
making. I have found them instructive in a number of ways. 
First, they provide an opportunity to see films that I have 
missed or films that haven't been screened in this country. 
This opportunity to see films outside of festivals which are 
not widely distributed is important for my growth as a film- 
maker. Second, I find the interchange with filmmakers and 
educators helpful in shaping my own views about production 
and aesthetics. Time can be spent with filmmakers who live 
in other parts of the country or world. This does not happen 
as easily at other film festivals. 

Of course, the most interesting moments take place during 
the informal parts of the seminar: before meals, during meals 
and late at night. Finally, I get a great deal of information 
which is most useful. The speakers deal with the production 
and distribution process, generally in a very open way. All 
discussions after the films in the "seminar room" are taped, 
but since participants are not permitted to quote or tape 
discussions they are much more open than most public 
discussions of films I have attended. The cost of the seminar 
is high, unless you are an invited guest or receive a scholar- 
ship. This year the fee was $430, which covered all expenses 
for the 7 nights, 21 meals and 6V2 days of screenings. 

The seminar is not a film market, or a beauty show or a 
publicity-seeking event. It has been going on for years with 
little more than word-of-mouth advertising. If you would like 
more information write: International Film Seminars, Inc., 
1860 Broadway, Room 1108, NY NY 10023 and ask to be put 
on the mailing list. I feel that it is important for independent 
filmmakers to take a week off every year or so and attend. 

© 1980 MWB 

Book Review 

by David J. Leedy, C.P.A. 

Self-distributed by Leedy, $6.95 (Paperback, postpaid) PO Box 
27845, Los Angeles CA 90027 

After receiving a number of direct mail pieces on this publica- 
tion and seeing a few ads in the Los Angeles trade papers, I 
wondered how a 70-page booklet subtitled The Financial 
Story Behind Phenomenal Picture could be useful. After firing 
off a letter requesting a review copy (that went unanswered), I 
sent in my $6.95 like everyone else. 

As a result, this book has joined the ever-growing list of 
required reading for my harried students at USC Leedy work- 
ed for a number of the major studios as an accountant, and 
this text provides a clear and fairly complete guide to feature 
film accounting practices. It is not always simple to follow, 
but Leedy gives very concise examples, which with a handy 
pad of paper and pencil nearby can be followed by readers 
who've had some experience balancing a checkbook. 

Leedy begins with a discussion of "gross revenue" showing 
how a distributor, depending upon contract wording for profit 
participants, can come up with varying sums to represent 
"gross revenue". This is part of the reason for much of the 
bad press some of the studios have received over the past 
few years concerning their accounting practices. It is clear 
that the problem is not with the studios being dishonest, but 
rather that filmmakers' advisors are the ones to blame. These 
"experts" accept the definitions offered by the business af- 
fairs people at the studios. 

As in all film and video deals, there are no standard contracts. 
Lawyers, agents and others who are not knowledgeable about 
the terms or business practices of distributors advise their 
clients to accept contract terms that later seem unfair. The 
studio distributor takes a bum rap for driving a good bargain. 
Many of the points Leedy raises can be used for analyzing 
non-theatrical or other film deals. For example, few non- 
theatrical distributors pay royalties on accrued sales, few 
contracts deal with allocation of discounts given to buyers of 
copies, and few contracts deal with the allocation of income 
from sub-distribution. 

Leedy's second chapter deals with distribution. In a few 
pages he provides a wealth of information on the structure of 
traditional theatrical distributors/studios. He goes over distri- 
bution fees studios charge and spends time dealing with the 
rentals charged theatres. In the third section he deals with 
distributor expenses for advertising and publicity. He goes 
over many of the steps involved in mounting a successful 
feature film advertising campaign from trade advertising to 
four-wall advertising. He discusses of publicity and promo- 
tion that would be helpful to independent filmmakers with 
smaller films. Leedy deals with production accounting, par- 
ticipations (with studios, talent, etc.), financing and interest 
costs and deferments. 

In his conclusion, Leedy points out that, "The distributor is 
not out to screw the participant. In fact, the distributor would 
like the opportunity to distribute the producer's (or talent's) 
next motion picture." David J. Leedy speaks with some ex- 
perience. He was employed by MCA as the Controller of 
Universal Pictures from May 1975 through April 1979. Prior to 
forming his own accounting firm, he was Director of Ad- 
ministration for Advertising and Publicity of MCA-Universal. 
The book is clearly worth the price and should be placed 
(after reading) on your film book reverence shelf. 



The Program Fund of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting invites public broadcasting stations and independent producers to 
submit proposals for major programs on controversial issues of critical importance to the American public. The Program Fund 
has initially allocated $1,500,000 for this solicitation as a start toward a regular monthly series of public broadcasts. To assure 
that this series is responsive to new critical issues, proposals are invited on a continuing basis beginning September 1, to be 
reviewed for funding quarterly. This is an attempt to develop new forms for exploring vital issues: drama, live coverage of an event 
or animation will be encouraged, as well as documentary. The Program Fund is looking for proposals that will tough the nerve and 
stimulate the mind. 

Subject matter can range from aspects of the role of women in today's society to the energy crisis; from the threat to individual 
privacy to the formation of foreign policy. Whatever the structure, each program should bring to light important new information 
about a matter of vital concern to the public. That information should be interpreted to give viewers an understanding of what it 
means to them. It should lead to a soundly reasoned conclusion which triggers spirited debate. The program should give a touch, 
painstakingly researched, hard-edged, fair-minded report in an attempt to explore realities that citizens, although they may 
disagree with the conclusions, cannot ignore. 

Strong, responsible investigative reporting will be welcomed where the producer can document and substantiate his or her find- 
ings in a way that satisfies the highest standards of journalism and meets any test of journalistic ethics. Selected programs will 
be packaged under the administration of an executive coordinator. This is an invitation for proposals that will excite the viewer to 
think and care about the issues, and to want to pursue them further. With the world lurching from crisis to crisis, an informed 
public is the only protection for democratic institutions. 


Eligibility: All public television stations and independent producers are eligible to submit proposals for single programs to be in- 
cluded in the series. 

Length: Each program must be at least 60 minutes in length, but no longer than 90 minutes. 

Development Phase: A project may be submitted as a production idea, a work in progress or a completed program. Programs that 
have been broadcast are ineligible. 

Note: Those who have completed works or works in progress should be prepared to send samples of work on request. DO NOT 

Completion: All productions must have a projected completion date no later than six months after the submission deadline. 


Deadlines: New proposals for this series will be accepted on a continuing basis for each of four rounds per year. To be included 
in a particular round, a proposal must be received at CPB by close of business (5:30 pm) on the date appropriate for that round. 
Round 1 — Fri., Nov. 14, 1980; Round 2 — Fri., Feb. 13, 1981; Round 3 — Fri., May 15, 1981; Round 4 — Fri., Aug. 14, 1981. 

Review Process: Program Fund staff will check all proposals for completeness prior to the panel review and evaluation that will 

follow each round of submissions. ^ ... , .. , .... ... .. , . .. ,. . 

Deliberations of the panels will be confidential; names of the panelists will not be released un- 
til after the final selections have been announced. 

Selection Announcements: Proposals selected to receive CPB funds will be announced after each round as follows: Round 1 — 
Dec. 19, 1980; Round 2 — March 13, 1981; Round 3 — June 12, 1981; Round 4 — Sept. 11, 1981. 

Contact: For further information on submission guidelines, CPB requisites, contract provisions, sample budget summary forms 
and basic information sheet, contact Eloise Payne at: 

Crisis to Crisis 

Program Fund 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

1111 16th St., NW 

Washington, DC 

(202) 293-6160 


BY Alison Dundes 

On January 1, 1980, public television gave birth to a new 
organization, the Association for Public Broadcasting (APB). 
APB was established to represent the interests of public TV 
stations before Congress and relevant regulatory bodies, and 
to influence public opinion. In a time when public TV's agen- 
da seems more and more divergent from the public's, this 
new lobbying group merits close scrutiny. 

APB represents a return to the idea of an "independent" 
lobbying organization for public TV broadcasters, removing 

this task from the immediate purview of PBS In 1978, 

PBS underwent extensive change when a public TV planning 
study recommended that PBS relegate its representational 
duties to a new autonomous organization. 

There are differing interpretations of why the PBS member- 
ship chose to establish this separate organization to serve as 
a new "center for public TV planning and representation." 
Some in public broadcasting have cited policy conflicts with- 
in PBS, while others have described stations' widespread dis- 
satisfaction with what they consider PBS' ineffective, feeble 
lobbying efforts. Some observers, especially independent pro- 
ducers, believe the change was made to prevent a repeat in 
upcoming Congressional hearings of the successes enjoyed 
by citizen group and independent producer lobbyists which 
led to the 1978 Public Telecommunications Financing Act. In 
any event, the issue of representation came to a head at the 
annual PBS meeting in Los Angeles in June, 1979, where the 
stations unanimously decided it was too "distracting" and 
perhaps even a "conflict of interest" for PBS to perform both 
programming and representational functions. 

Michael Hobbes, Vice President of PBS and until recently act- 
ing secretary of APB, says that public TV stations found PBS' 
work in programming and representation an "uncomfortable 
marriage of responsibilities." Hobbes feels that one factor 
contributing to APB's spin-off was "nagging nervousness" 
that the program decision-making process was too vulnerable 
politically if PBS handled both functions 

APB's Tasks 

APB is an independent non-profit organization whose 
membership is almost identical to that of PBS. Serving 148 
public television licensees is a full-time staff consisting of 
David Carley (President), Peter Fannon (Acting Director), 
Gerard Schenkkan (Assistant Director), and Yvonne Hauser 
and Luisa Miller. For fiscal years 1980 and 1981, PBS has 
guaranteed APB an annual budget of $500,000 out of dues 
collected from member stations. 

APB has relieved PBS of representation, research and plan- 
ning, allowing PBS to focus full attention on programming- 
related matters. APB will undertake research projects to 
analyze licensee characteristics, financing, social, economic, 
and demographic trends which will affect the public TV 
industry. Further, it will monitor data relating to facilities, 
programming, and industry employment to assist individual 
stations and national public TV organizations on long-term 

PBS and APB still face an organizational problem in defining 
their jurisdictions, however. Concerning "the debate about 
the dividing line," PBS' Hobbes commented "there are as 
many views as there are speakers." 

A Prime Concern 

Predictably, adequacy of financing remains one of the most 
troublesome issues for public TV, and rests high on APB's 
agenda. APB Board Member Dr. Margaret Chisholm stressed 
that APB's main and ongoing concern will be to secure suffi- 
cient funds for public TV. As part of this effort, APB Presi- 
dent Carley is interested in freeing public TV to "explore" 
new technologies such as direct satellite to home broad- 
casts, subscription TV and cable, endeavors which could 
make public TV significantly less dependent on federal fund- 

At the same time, APB intends to assure there are "no 
strings," such as legal requirements for Community Advisory 
Boards and open financial records, attached to federal funds 
stations receive. APB also adamantly opposes government 
allocations for specific purposes (e.g., financing earmarked 
by the Public Telecommunications Financing Act for indepen- 
dent producers). APB Chairman of the Board Homer Babbidge 
elaborates: "We firmly believe in the concept of localism and 
are dedicated to a system where the decision-making power 
exists at the local level." APB's concept of localism takes as 
its premise public TV stations' independence from federal 

Not surprisingly, independents oppose such autonomy for 
public stations. John Rice of the Association of Independent 
Video and Filmmakers (AIVF) describes the stations' 
priorities as a political "totem pole" with the independents in 
the lowest position. Rice believes that if APB triumphs on 
this issue, it is "as good as the death knell for 


Because of the novelty of APB, it is not yet clear how the 
organization will develop the specifics for its agenda. While 
there is ready agreement with Hartford Gunn's statement that 
"the industry needs a voice to express itself collectively," 
APB is uncertain how to determine what that voice should 
say. APB's Schenkkan admits it will be "tough" to find a con- 
sensus representing the diverse interests of the many PBS 
affiliates, and he adds that "there are no procedures specific 
and regular which have been laid out for consensus 
building. ..." 

If APB faces difficulties in its expressed goal to serve the in- 
terests of public TV stations, it faces even greater challenges 
in meeting its implied goal of serving the public. APB has a 
fairly clear slate on the issues so far, so it is difficult to 
assess just what impact the new group is likely to have on 
the public interest. But the general themes of APB's mandate 
are evident: whether seeking more funds for public TV sta- 
tions (which could mean less money for independent pro- 
ducers), or reduced federal regulations (which could mean 
less effective minority hiring practices and reduced respon- 
siveness to the viewing public), APB represents the intention 
of public broadcasters to play political hardball. Thus, APB 
should be watched carefully for its performance on two 
fronts: the way it represents the interests of its broad and 
diverse station membership, and the direction in which it at- 
tempts to move legislative and regulatory policy toward 
public television. 

— Ed. Excerpted from the July 28, 1980 issue of Access. This 
useful newsletter, published every two weeks by the National 
Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, keeps advocacy groups 
informed on current rulemaking and important media events. 



%ilcvuf %anni4, 


by Maeve Druesne 

(The following interview took place on April 30, 1980.) 

MD: I'd like some biographical information: how did you get 
into filmmaking? 

HH: It all started when I was about thirteen. I was out in 
Hollywood, of all places. . .and I saw the films of John and 
James Whitney. They were abstract films. I didn't want to be 
a filmmaker at that point, I just used to talk about the films 
and think about them. I realized that they were very important 
in the history of the development of aesthetics of film — a 
milestone. . .They're brothers and they work together. They're 
still making films, James on and off and John pretty con- 

I was in Hollywood High School, and I still wanted to be an 
engineer, build bridges. But Columbia College was a big let- 
down. I realized that I was more interested in aesthetics, in 
art, so I decided to make films. 

I quit college after a year. Actually, I went a second year — 
just to take some interesting courses with Susanne Langer, 
who was teaching Philosophy of Art. She made me realize the 
importance of art for society and culture; it's part of our 
whole basic knowledge system. 

Then I quit and made my first film, which was LONGHORNS, 
although I didn't finish it — I shot it and got most of the 
editing done. I then worked as an apprentice with Mary Ellen 
Butte, who had a small production company in New York. I 

got a lot of experience that way, working with 35 and 16 — we 
were shooting commercials and I was also helping her with 
her experimental films. 

MD: With your own filmmaking you started doing abstract 

HH: Yeah. It's still a passion of mine. It's now at the point 
where I've been able to do some research. At the moment I'm 
developing a synthesizer. . .the basic purpose is to create 
abstract films. Because I think there's a tremendous 
language, a potential here for communication, using the 
kinetic imagery as immediate emotional impact — as im- 
mediate as music. Non-literal — a direct message. 

MD: / wanted to know how you got interested in the whole 
concept/philosophy of Holism. 

HH: Well, it's an instinct from a long time back: when I was a 
teenager visiting New York, I was thrown into this problem of 
what the city is. The city has been the focal point for trying to 
understand the environment for me. I found the city very 
stimulating, very exciting, also very overwhelming, and 
sometimes very depressing. It was like a giant problem: how 
to cope with it, how to understand it. 

In my early twenties, I got this vision of feeling related to the 
whole city. I came out of the Museum of Modern Art — and I 
don't know what show I'd seen — feeling good, and I sudden- 
ly got involved in this game with some kids outside. They 
were chasing a ball and they went through my legs and all of 


a sudden, I felt connected to the whole city. I just felt this 
rush — whoosh — I felt like my arms were covering the 
whole thing, like it was part of me and I was part of it — a 
great sense of love, of ecstasy for the whole city. That's the 
springboard for all this work on the city, which I'm sure you're 
going to ask me about anyway, but you asked me about 
Holism. . . . 

In the city we have this whole culture which is tremendously 
specialized, categorized, broken down into all these linear 
components, which are very hard to grasp, and see the rela- 
tionships. As you walk down a city street, you realize you're 
passing a shoemaker, a diamond-cutter, an insurance sales- 
man, a pimp, a business executive — they're all right there, 
next to you. It's overwhelming; you can't really appreciate 
that all these lives are all connected in some incredible web. 

Somehow to feel at home in the city: that's the basis for all 
this work.We need to realize that it's us. It's a reflection of us. 
The city is something that we're creating, and therefore 
ultimately responsible for. But it's very easy to feel alienated, 
to feel like it's everybody else's business — that the system 
is wrong, that something is all screwed up, and it is in part. 
But part of that screw-up is that we don't feel we're causing it 
to happen. We have this separation, this alienation. 

So all of that is an introduction to saying that about four 
years ago I began to hear people talking about Holism, and I 
read an article in the New York Times about this group at 
Stanford, in California. They were saying the future develop- 
ment of man was going to require a holistic approach, that we 
are so scattered and fractured as a culture, there's such a 
lack of cohesion and it's a reflection of our relationship to our 
environment, to our cities. I realized that this is my prime con- 
cern; in other words, the philosophy behind all of this work on 
the city has been to try to make it whole, to try to grasp and 
make the city a single thing, as an experience for a person to 
relate to. 

MD: That's a pretty big challenge. 

HH: It's a very big challenge. This work on New York is a 
major life's work, really. 

MD: In the interview you did with the Independent (July, 
1976), you mentioned that some people watching ORGANISM 
feel overwhelmed by it. That struck me as very interesting 
because I had a completely different reaction, almost the op- 
posite. The city is overwhelming, but a lot of times I find that 
while I'm walking around I think about the film. So in my case 
I guess it's done what you wanted. 

HH: Yeah, right. 

MD: Did you finish CITY PROCESS? 

HH: No, I haven't been able to come up with the next sequel 
from ORGANISM. I worked on the film, but I couldn't get it to 
the point where it was really working right. It's a very difficult 
one, CITY PROCESS, the hard-core documentary aspect. It 
has to be really alive and very exciting. It shows the most 
mundane, obvious things about our social metabolism and 
how things get made and done and yet it has to transform it 
into a wondrous experience. In other words, when we look at 
an ant-hill and we start studying how the ants get together 
and do all these complex things, we get amazed by it. We 
don't get amazed by our own incredible metabolism and 
social structure, and this is what we need to do. 

MD: So you just sort of shelved that temporarily? 

HH: Yeah, although I'm still thinking about it. I have new 
ideas and I'll be getting back to editing it. 

MD: I'd also like to know about THE NUER. How did that 
come about? 


HH: Bob Gardner, a friend and anthropological filmmaker out 
of Harvard, and the head of the Harvard film school, had a big 
grant over in Ethiopia and asked me if I wanted to do a film 
there. I did it for expenses and half ownership of the film. 

MD: That was through the Peabody Museum? 

HH: Yeah. They're the organization that sponsored it. 

MD: / was very interested in what you said about when you 
came back from Africa, that you had this feeling of peace. Do 
you think that that sort of feeling is impossible in the way we 

HH: Oh, no. I don't think it's impossible. But you practically 
have to be a saint. 

MD: Meditate 8 hours a day. 

HH: Yeah, right. But I think it has to be possible. We have to 
get to a point where we can relate to the environment and 
therefore to each other and get to that kind of peace. 

We have to learn how to use our new tools. The technological 
revolution and the arts have been a little bit behind. Our use 
of film and video is still very primitive. 

MD: The people there obviously have no apprehension about 
being filmed or photographed. I find that interesting because 
a lot of times you hear about these "primitive" people who 
don't like to be photographed. 

HH: There was some of that, actually. Of course, they didn't 
have much sense of what photographs were, except in terms 
of still photography. They'd never seen a movie. They have 
this notion that if you take a picture of them. . . 

MD: You steal their soul? 

HH: Something like that. 

MD: In reference to what you were saying in that article 
about Africa, you mentioned that you had been in New 
Mexico with the Navajo Indians. Were you working on a film? 

HH: There was another fellow I worked for in those days, 
named Walter Lewison, and he was doing a film project there 
with a sandpainter medicine man. I just happened to be pass- 
ing through there at the time that he was doing this, so I 
hooked up with him and we spent several days chasing 
around the reservation, got flushed out by a flash-flood, went 
a different route, more or less got lost, and ran into a squaw 
dance. All of these dances are healing dances, but this par- 
ticular one is also quite social and young couples get 

We were coming along over the mesa in the evening, just 
at dusk, and here was this huge bonfire and two or three 
hundred Indians around it dancing. That was just an incredi- 
ble sight to run into unexpectedly. To listen to it and sense 
their relationship to the whole environment and their sense of 
peace, their sense of solidity; I realized that they had a kind 
of strength, connectedness that we just didn't know much 
about. We're very impoverished in that sense. 

MD: What are you working on currently? 

HH: What I'm doing now is taking a break from the city work. 
I've got the job with the New York State University system to 
do a videotape of the biochemical processes. I'm using peo- 
ple from the dance department and some professional 
dancers plus my synthesizer, which is to make abstract films, 
and using it to generate models of molecules and talk about 
certain biochemical things. So it's a wonderful way for me to 
do an interesting film and at the same time develop my own 
synthesizer to do abstract films. 

HH: It all started with a biochemist. He wanted to do some 
educational films that were more enlightened than the usual 
ones, to describe biochemical processes. He had seen some- 
thing done with dance and it wasn't very good. He somehow 
convinced the New York State University system that there 
should be a film like this done, using the dance department 
and a good filmmaker, like me, to put it together. But it's an 
arts project and I wound up turning it into a more 
philosophical thing. There's no point in having art do a literal 
explanation of things. I think that art should stand on its own 
two feet as a parallel to science. In other words, this 
choreographer has choreographed a piece inspired by the 
Krebs Cycle, which is part of the biological process. Some of 
it is literal: certain molecules do certain things at certain 
times in the dance. 

MD: How long is this going to be? 

HH: It's a half-hour videotape. So it can't go into too much 

depth. It's a broad view of biological energy, really. 

The synthesizer is going to permit you to create movement on 
the video tube, or more accurately, the oscilloscope tube, 
which does not have the horizontal scan lines. It draws forms 
on the tube, so it's actually got more resolution than video 
does, and you can film off the tube. You're creating forms, 
rather complex, very specific, controllable forms, and giving 
them expressive motion. 

MD: And you built all this yourself? 

HH: Yeah. I'm learning more and more about electronics. I 
never had formal training in it. 

MD: Who else is involved in your Foundation? 

HH: Anybody who is sympathetic with Holism, I suppose, 
and has a good project, can be related to the Foundation. 
Almost everything relates to Holism. 


mmm msm\ 

Tomorrow Is Another Day 


by Alan Mitosky 

The National Cable Television Association convention held 
last May in Dallas foreshadows a momentous shift in pro- 
gramming and entertainment for the '80s. The dimensions of 
this phenomenon go far beyond the proliferation of new pro- 
ducts and services for video or the opening of major new 
markets for programming and advertising sales. 

What the Dallas experience made undeniably clear to the 
9000 delegates, representing every segment of the home 
video industry, is that we are in the storm center of a 
technological revolution that over the next decade will 
dramatically change the very character of society. The focus 
of this electronic revolution is the transmission of image, 
sound and characters to the home video screen. Its well- 
spring is a new technology capable of bringing every con- 
ceivable form of programming, information and telecom- 
munication service into the homes of America. 

Of course the "New Technology" originates only partly from 
current video developments. Much of it derives from military 
and space-age innovations of the last 20 years — still more 
from the commercial application of semi-conductors, micro- 
processors and other computer-related technology. Com- 
munication innovations like fiber and laser optics, microwave 
and satellite transmission also make vital contributions to the 
new technology. 

Major delivery systems of the new technology include basic 
cable, two-way cable, Multi-point Distribution via Microwave 
(MDS), UHF over-the-air subscription television (STV), satellite 
transmission and video cassette recorders (VCRs), with video- 
discs scheduled to be introduced to the consumer market in 
the first quarter of 1981 and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
being forecast for perhaps as early as the mid-80s. 

No one can fully grasp the eventual impact on all of us of the 
billions of dollars now being invested by the multinational 
communications titans. But even a cursory survey of past and 
emerging commercial commitments points to a technological 
marketing effort of unprecedented impact. The dramatis per- 
sonae who are the lead players in the media revolution reads 
like the Social Register of international commerce. 

But how does the current boom in home video differ from the 
bullish enthusiasm for cable in the 50's and 60's? Why are 
these industry giants redirecting so much of their corporate 
capital and resources to what have traditionally been such 
high-risk markets? For despite the billions of dollars already 
invested, as much as another $10 billion will probably be re- 
quired to wire some 44 million more TV homes for cable over 
the next ten years. 

Without trying to resolve this chicken and egg dilemma, we 
can see that several important factors quantitatively and 
qualitatively distinguish present industry activity from past 
experience. One example is the accelerating trend begun in 
the mid-70's to deregulate cable, in which a series of industry 
victories has eliminated earlier FCC restrictions on cable 
operations and programming to the point where free market 
forces now basically dictate the form and shape of cable 
growth. Another is the application of new and reapplied 
technology to cable, especially in satellite hardware, on a 
cost-efficient basis. Then there are the technical break- 


throughs in VCRs and videodisc hardware in the "instant net- 
work" capability, pioneered by HBO and Scientific-Atlanta in 
1975, proving that a satellite signal could tie together in- 
dependent cable systems into a national marketing base with 
volume increases in subscriber revenue and commensurate 
decreases in per-viewer programming costs. 

By the mid-80's, cable will achieve a possible 30% penetra- 
tion of all TV homes, with a projected potential from advertis- 
ing revenues alone of nearly $3 billion. The sum of these 
forces is well expressed by Harold Vogel of Merrill, Lynch, 
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. quoted in the Carnegie Corpora- 
tion PACE Report: 

"By 1985 there will be 12 million videocassette 
households, 14 million videodisc households split 
about evenly between the MCA-optional and RCA 
capacitance systems, at least 30 percent television 
household penetration of cable (or about 25 million) 
and 25 STV systems generating over $1 billion annually 
from about 3 million households. The videodisc market 
including commercial, industrial and home players and 
discs could then easily exceed $3 billion annually, with 
the videocassettes market over half the size of the 
videodisc market. Given another 15 years in aggregate, 
I believe the new industries will be larger than the 
broadcasting industry." 

In other words, the media revolution will happen not because 
some Utopian cultural resurgence has suddenly swept across 
the land, but because the business world believes there is 
money — a great deal of money — to be made from it. 

The unfolding Media Revolution is creating unique challenges 
and opportunities for independent film and video artists — 
unique because much of the technology is new; because new 
configurations of audiences will be formed; because evolving 
delivery systems will identify additional audiences; and most 
significantly, because for the first time the needs and in- 
terests of the commercial sector and those of independent 
producers are becoming more congruent. As new cable 
systems of 36 to 125 channels come on line, the demand and 
competition for programming will reach dimensions un- 
precedented even by the voracious appetite of present-day 
commercial broadcasting. 

Aside from the quantitative scale of programming demands, 
the new technology marks a dynamic shift in emphasis from 
established broadcast practices. Commercial broadcasting 
has always been chiefly structured as a medium for the sale 
of sponsored products to mass markets and of air-time to 
advertisers. Programming within commercial broadcasting is 
therefore conceived to reach the greatest number of people 
to produce the largest volume of sales — and consequently, 
to raise the costs to advertisers of the finite number of 
available broadcasting hours. 

In contrast, the New Technology by definition introduces a 
new era of viewer-controlled marketing. Whether distribution 
be via cable, STV, MDS, DBS or cassette/disc, the program is 
the product. Success in the competition for subscribers bet- 
ween network suppliers like HBO, Showtime and Warner- 
Amex, or Super Stations like Atlanta's WTBS, will depend in 

part on the ability to offer programming — as opposed to pro- 
ducts — to cable, MDS and STV systems that individual con- 
sumers are willing to pay for. 

Programming by the new media does not mean the end of 
mass market broadcasting via free TV or of mass market 
sales of popular movies on pay-TV and cassette/discs. But 
pay-TV's and home video's success will also depend on the 
new concept of "narrowcasting" — identifying discrete 
audiences with specific programming interests and tastes. 
The opportunity offered to independents by narrowcasting 
boggles the imagination, for the kind of film and video work 
to which independents are strongly committed could finally 
achieve a viable economic base. As more homes are passed 
by cable, as the networking process continues its growth, 
and as the advent of DBS looms ever closer on the horizon, 
markets of 50,000 to 500,000 subscribers will become in- 
creasingly profitable. 

And as specialized audiences are identified and reached by 
cable and pay-TV, programming areas traditionally blocked by 
mass marketing techniques will now offer far greater incen- 
tive to both program distributors and producers. Are there a 
half-million people nationwide interested in quality political 
films and social documentaries? Or 50,000 fans of the art of 
film animation? Or a million dedicated conservationists who 
would subscribe to a creatively produced program on the en- 
vironment? No one knows for sure, but as the marketing cam- 
paigns of the '80s unfold, as new sales and promotion tech- 
niques are tested, a new demograhic will emerge based on 
age, education, ethnic needs, social and economic strata and 
regional interests. 

The emphasis on programming as product, on consumer- 
controlled viewing, the development of "narrowcasting" 
markets and the fiercely competitive acquisition and produc- 
tion of software are all new and positive elements working in 
favor of more freedom, exposure, recognition and financial 
return for independents. But the insatiable appetite for pro- 
gramming created by the New Technology — leading to a 
natural alliance of independents and programmers from the 
commercial sector — does not mean that all ahead is smooth 
sailing. For independents to take full advantage of the 
targeted audiences that the New Technology will create, 
some old habits and attitudes born of yesterday's needs will 
have to change. 

In order to deal effectively in the new marketplace to secure 
adequate financial return, programming control and proper 
promotion, independents should adopt four basic principles: 
1) pooling of product; 2) control of product flow; 3) an orderly 
market progression; 4) professional sales management. 
Together, these four concepts offer independents a sales ap- 
proach that could successfully mesh with the operations of 
commercial program suppliers, while giving producers an im- 
portant measure of control. A brief look at each of these prin- 
ciples shows why they are necessary and how they are 
mutually supportive. 

The pooling of product is partly a question of sheer numbers. 
Obviously, independents who collectively control 1,000 sale- 
able titles will have more leverage than any single film or 
video artist could hope to achieve. And the collectivization of 
product also generates other primary benefits for indepen- 
dents: (1) greater flexibility and variety in assembling larger 
numbers of quality program packages; (2) the ability to deliver 
a guaranteed number of programming hours; (3) greater con- 
trol over content and format; and (4) the potential for attract- 
ing new production investment. 

The value of film/video art, like anything else that is sold, 
depends partly on its scarcity. Control of product flow, a 

natural extension of product pooling, gives independents the 
benefit of retaining some degree of mastery over how much 
of their work will reach media outlets at any given time. While 
this may seem an anomaly to independents (who in the past 
have not been able to get enough of their work before a view- 
ing public), control of product flow is one way to fortify op- 
timum sales terms and playing conditions. 

There are so many variables in product and marketing condi- 
tions that it would be foolhardy to try to formulate any 
"typical" release pattern — especially as applied to the diver- 
sity of independent work versus, for instance, a major studio 
film. But the principle of an orderly market progression for in- 
dependents in the emerging media is important to protect 
and enhance the commercial value of independent produc- 
tions. No experienced producer in today's market would, 
given a choice, release his feature to syndication before net- 
work TV; or to network TV before pay-TV; or to pay TV before 
theatrical run. However future marketing sequences may 
evolve (and there are many conflicting "guesstimates" surfac- 
ing at present), an overall strategy to maximize the commer- 
cial life of independent work is a key component for success 
in new technology markets. 

Most independent film and video artists would be appalled at 
the suggestion that their concept for a production be ex- 
ecuted by someone whose professional training was not in 
filmmaking or video. Such an idea would be rightfully seen 
not only as an insult to their personal vision and craft, but 
also as ludicrously inappropriate. As independents organize 
to enter the New Technology markets, their sales goals and 
needs will best be met by experienced professionals, rather 
than by filmmakers or arts administrators. Professional sales 
managers, knowledgeable in marketing and trained to repre- 
sent their employers, the independents, are essential to a 
successful sales program. 

Whether independents choose to create new organizations, 
adapt existing ones or turn to the commercial sector for 
representation, the four principles of product pooling, pro- 
duct flow control, marketing progression and professional 
sales management form a framework for better programming, 
greater audience reach, increased financial returns and 
enhanced control over how, where and when independent 
work will be used. 

A fairer share for independents of Public Broadcasting pro- 
duction funds, minority representation in programming and 
peer panel review are some of the issues to which media ad- 
vocates such as the Association of Independent Video and 
Filmmakers in New York have been committed. Although this 
important work should surely be continued, the New 
Technology introduces a whole new set of paramount con- 
cerns to both independents and the general public. Some of 
the difficult and controversial issues calling for close public 
scrutiny are: 

• Preserving the common carrier status of key delivery 

• Developing community standards for cable franchising 

• Preserving the principle of uninterrupted programming in 

• Studying the role and effects of advertising in cable and 

• Monitoring and setting regulatory guidelines for the 
merger and acquisition of transmission and broadcasting 
capabilities by "Supercorps" 

• Evaluating the degree and kind of government regulation 
that may be required for the public's welfare and protec- 



• Setting standards for and monitoring copyright account- 

• Establishing statutory safeguards and enforcing 
mechanisms for the protection of I and IV Amendment 

How all these issues are eventually resolved will materially af- 
fect the direction, quality, and content of future program- 
ming. But the overriding public policy question emerging over 
the next decade will be the separation of transmission con- 
trol from programming control .Vigilant advocacy efforts by in- 
dependents and other public interest groups will be called for 
to protect freedom of viewer choice and to work for measures 
that guarantee the broadest diversity and independence in 

In the video world of tomorrow, both economic and political 
power will surely gravitate to the volatile, dynamic and 
growth-oriented telecommunications giants — as it did to the 
railroads, utilities and manufacturing industries of the last 
century. Insuring open communications in our society will de- 
pend on how that power is channeled and on what safeguards 
can be established for the public welfare. 

By 1980, cable and the allied technologies of MDS, STV and 
DBS linked with computer-controlled transmission of informa- 
tion and services will be perhaps the dominant, characterizing 
force in society. With the advent over the next decade of 
interactive services, such as electronic funds transfer (EFT), 
electronic mail, viewdata and teletext, new social patterns 
will begin to emerge for managing our commercial enter- 
prises and our personal business affairs. No matter how we 
finally evolve as a society in the era of the New Technology, 
the outlines of some general themes — like the accelerating 
shift of investment capital from established outlets to new 

media applications — are already clear. 

Another trend of consequence to independents is the blurring 
of lines between programming, entertainment and informa- 
tion. For example, most of us agree that Ma Bell's hourly 
weather update is an information service, but what of Sports- 
line, or Dial-A-Prayer, or Dial-A-Joke — and now Horoscopes- 
By-Phone? Is the world's biggest common carrier now 
originating programming, and if so, does it permit access to 
its system by competitive programmers? And what will hap- 
pen when and if the incomparable cable and switching 
facilities of AT&T are allowed to convert to video signal? In 
the long view, this is not so much a question of anti-trust 
legislation as a matter of the vast impact upon us of a new 
social phenomenon — the potentially pervasive control of in- 
formation by massive computer capability linked with the 
equally massive video transmission capability. 

The ultimate significance of the media revolution takes us far 
beyond the introduction of new programming, new services 
and new communications modes. It introduces a major cycle 
in human affairs as revolutionary in scale mankind's future, 
scale, in terms of its effects upon humankind's as the transi- 
tion from hunter-gatherer tribes into agricultural communities 
and their later evolution into industrial societies. 

As the new era unfolds, the litmus test of its character will be 
found not in the astounding technology of the media revolu- 
tion, but in the degree of its humanism, the responsiveness 
of its political and financial institutions and the strength of 
its cultural and moral values. Independents, with their per- 
sonal vision, creativity and media skills are uniquely equipped 
to play a positive role in the challenging evolution of the In- 
formation Age. 

m/h ms/m\ 

The SPC 

The 9th Station Program Cooperative is beginning amidst 
much controversy. The annual PBS Program Fair, which 
allows stations (and independents) to make series offerings 
to public T.V. stations, has recently been under reform con- 
sideration. In the past, independents have had little luck in 
competing effectively in the market that brings us 
Washington Week in Review, Bill Buckley's Firing Line and 
other mainstream programming for PTV. This year the new 
PBS program use policy makes it even more difficult for in- 
dependents to partake. At any rate, here's the timetable. 
Oct. 8 — proposal postmark deadline; Oct. 17 — catalog and 

preference ballot mailed; Nov. 14 — preference ballot 
deadline; Nov. 21 — preference results announced (first cut); 
Dec. 23 — sampler segments of new proposals delivered to 
PBS; Jan. 4-8 — Program Fair; Jan. 12-14 — closed circuit 
feed of samplers; Jan. 29 — selection rounds begin; Mar. 31 
— market completed and closed. 

For more information on SPC submission procedures, call 
John Lorenz, SPC Coordinator, at PBS in Washington, (202) 
488-5000. For more information on independents and the SPC, 
call John Rice at AIVF. 




This September, Doris Chase presented a new produc- 
tion with dancer/choreographer Gay De Langhe, on the 
television series, "Other Visions, Other Voices." The 
program was the only dance work in this series, which 
was organized and presented by the Global Village Tele- 
vision Center to show challenging independent produc- 
tions to a larger audience. 

I am a visual artist by profession and the films I make all 
evolve from my obsession with the arts. A painter for many 
years, I gradually moved into sculpture and then to theater 
and film. Abstraction of color, space, time, and delineations 
of line and mass have been the focus of my work. The private 
visions of painting are always with me; they influence the ap- 
proach to all my work. 

Using the aesthetics of painting I isolate the subject and 
compose within a given space. This space, though con- 
sidered negative, is of equal importance to the positive 
image. The interplay between subject and theme and 
rhythmic variations as structure are combined with music to 
create an aura of the spontanteous. 

My films are an extension of the creative process involved in 
kinetic sculpture and allow me to fulfill myself as an architect 
of movement. In this way logic and reason interact with an in- 
stinctive visual aesthetic to combine concrete ideas and 
direct response to rhythms. 

In the total kinetic visual environment of film the perception 
of movement becomes inseparable from the perception of 
form and light and in this environment I organize and control 
all elements — calculating the structure from beginning to 
end. My medium is energy expressed in light and movement. 

DANCE SERIES by Doris Chase with dancer/choreographer Gay De Langhe. 



DANCE SERIES, a new program by Dons Chase 

My films seek a spontaneous balance but are intellectually ar- 
ranged. There is a surface simplicity governed by a deep 
poetic awareness. 

There are vast amounts of energy stored in the images I 
create. I want the viewer to relate to these reserves allowing 
the movement of light to reverberate. It is sometimes this ex- 
tended tension and unleashing of energy that overstimulates 
and exhausts my audiences. The images operate freely — 
within their orbits and distortion works on many levels. (The 
ideal viewpoint is the actual physical sensation and its 
kinesthetic relation). I prefer to create a visual and mental ten- 
sion rather than contemplative reverberations, and I treasure 
the audience's delight as well as their serious appreciation. 

My film images are juxtaposed and repeated, reiterating 
themes and obsessions. Basically a romantic, I'm fascinated 
by visions and dreams and try to present them in a formal set- 
ting. I offer an aesthetic experience which encompasses an 
intense, dynamic energy and the universal quality of mystery. 

The films are records of particular movement patterns which I 
attempt to articulate. I draw from a myriad of diverse sources 
to illuminate the intricate communications between energy 
fields; I am not a formalist nor do my films tend toward struc- 
turalism. I prefer to use the nature and parameters of film and 
tape by dealing with the various technical manipulations 
possible in the labs and television studios to extend some of 
their possibilities. 


The Column 


HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A BRAIN STORM? This year we would like to 
present more screenings and symposia centered around issues of in- 
terest to video and filmmakers. Last year, Richard Benner (OUT- 
RAGEOUS) and Frank Vitale (MONTREAL MAIN) spoke about 
American filmmakers working in Canada. Josh Hanig and David Davis 
(SONG OF THE CANARY) reported on their struggles with PBS, and 
comedian Mitchell Kriegman spoke about his methods of "eccentric 
distribution" for video art. If you have any ideas for future programs, 
we would like to hear from you. Drop us a note or call: Leslie 
Tonkonow (212) 473-3400. 

PLANS FOR A.I.D. LAID: During last May's American Film Festival in 
NYC, Mitch Block, Debra Franco and Laura Shuster organized a 
meeting with other distributors and independent filmmakers in an ef- 
fort to organize a support group for small distributors. What grew out 
of that meeting was The Association of Independent Distributors, now 
being formed. Ideas discussed included sharing mailings, mailing lists 
and other info, as well as exhibit space at festivals and conferences. A 
questionaire is being circulated to determine how much interest there 
is for such an organization. For further information contact: Ben 
Achtenberg, Plainsong Productions, 47 Halifax St., Jamaica Plain, MA 

TALLY HO: Results of elections for The National Alliance Of Media 
Arts Centers first Board of Directors are finally in. Elections were held 
on a regional basis with representatives nominated by member 
organizations. The NAMAC Board will be composed of Susan Woll 
from Boston, Larry Kardish from New York, Wanda Bershen from Penn- 
sylvania, J. Ronald Green from Ohio, L. Wade Black from Alabama, 
Wesley Pouliot from Colorado, Douglas Edwards from California, and 
Norie Sato from Washington state. In two regions, the Board members 
will have to be appointed by the above group because no nominations 
were received. Tom Sims from Texas and John Alberty from Oklahoma 
tied in region #7. Two reps were also chosen to represent the country 
at-large. They are Robert Haller (Anthology Film Archives, New York) 
and Robert Sitton (Northwest Film Study Center, Oregon). Robert 
Haller is serving temporarily as information conduit and chairman so if 
you need a map to figure all this out you can contact him at: (212) 

NEW ACCESS TO VIDEO EQUIPMENT: Locus Communications has 
received a grant from NYSCA to provide low-cost rentals of portable 
video equipment for non-commercial projects. AIVF member Gerry 
Pallor organized this ambitious project which will serve artists, arts 
and social service organizations, community groups and cable pro- 
ducers. In addition to low-cost rentals, a full schedule of workshops 
and seminars, membership program offering discounts on rates, a 
video buying plan and health insurance options are also being pro- 
posed. Locus will be accepting applications beginning in early 
October and rentals will begin October 13th. For information about 
rentals, call the office (located at 250 W. 57 St., Suite 1228, in NYC) at 
(212) 757-4220. 

PILGRIM'S PROGRESS: Fall is a transitional time for most people, but 
in this world an unusual amount of travel and movement has 
transpired of late. At the Independent Film and Video Distribution 

Center (IFVDC) in Colorado, Susan Burks, who has a hefty background 
in programming and promotion at PBS, was named Associate Direc- 
tor. . . . Nan Robinson plans to increase direct support for Southern 
independents in her new position as Director of the South Carolina 
Arts Commission's Media Arts Center. . . . Steven Lawrence, formerly 
of the Center for Non-Broadcast TV, is now ensconced at the Public 
Interest Video Network as staff producer. (They're the group responsi- 
ble for the satellite transmission of last year's anti-nuke demo in 
Washington.) He will direct PIVN's newly opened NY office. . . . And at 
the AFI Larry Kirkman, who incidentally founded PIVN, has been 
named Director of the just-created TV and Video Services Program. . . . 
Of significance to all of us with an interest in the doings at CPB, 
Jennifer Lawson has become Program Coordinator for the Program 
Fund. Jennifer has a long and active history promoting and aiding in- 
dependents as director of the Film Fund and we wish her much suc- 
cess with her work in Washington.... Meanwhile, Terry Lawler will 
serve as Acting Director of the Film Fund, filling in for Jennifer. 

LAST TAKE: A moment of sorrow and regret for the recent passing of 
Boris Kaufman, an extraordinary cinematographer who should be 
remembered for his work with Jean Vigo on ZERO DE CONDUIT and 


A number of festival directors have asked us to recommend 
independent films for consideration. We would like to refer 
them to you and are putting together an open file of films cur- 
rently in production or recently completed (within the past 
year). Please send synopses, credits, brochures, and other 
publicity material to: Leslie Tonkonow, FIVF Festivals, 625 
Broadway, 9th Fl., New York, NY 10012. 


Festival '80 

Perspectives in Community Video 

A festival of videotapes 
produced by community 
artists about the world 
in which they live. 
All formats are eligible, 
Vi" reel-reel, Vi" cassette, 
V*" cassette, B&Wor 
color. A $10 entry fee is 

For a Festival '80 applica- 
tion and more informa- 
tion please write 

Festival '80 

Downtown Community 

TV Center 

87 Lafayette Street 

New York, New York 



Here presented are the founding principles of the AIVF, followed by new resolutions that were approved by vote last April of the entire membership, at the same time the 
Board of Directors were elected. 

Since the addition of any new resolutions constitutes a by-law change, the consent of the membership was required. 


Be it resolved, that the following five principles be adopted as the Principles of the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, Inc. 


1. The Association is a service organization of and for independent video and 

2. The Association encourages excellence, committment, and independence; it 
stands for the principle that video and filmmaking is more than just a job — that it 
goes beyond economics to involve the expression of broad human values. 

3. The Association works, through the combined effort of the membership, to 
provide practical, informational, and moral support for independent video and film- 
makers and is dedicated to insuring the survival and providing support for the con- 
tinuing growth of independent video and filmmaking. 

4. The Association does not limit its support to one genre, ideology, or 
aesthetic, but furthers diversity of vision in artistic and social consciousness. 

5. The Association champions independent video and film as valuable and vital 
expressions of our culture and is determined, by mutual action, to open pathways 
toward exhibition of this work to the community at large. 

The AIVF resolves: 

1. To affirm the creative use of media in fostering cooperation, community, 
justice in human relationships and respect of age, sex, race, class or religion. 

2. To recognize and reaffirm the freedom of expression of the independent film 
and video maker, as spelled out in the AIVF principles. 

3. To promote constructive dialogue and heightened awareness among the 
membership of the social, artistic, and personal choices involved in the pursuit of 
both independent and sponsored work, via such mechanisms as screenings and 

4. To continue to work to strengthen AlVF's services to independents, in order 
to help reduce the membership's dependence on the kinds of sponsorship which 
encourages the compromise of personal values. 


Equipment rental specially priced for the independent film maker. 

New C.P.16R reflex 

Rental per week 


Package includes: 

Also available: 

10-150 Ang. Zoom 

2 mags, 2 batteries, 2 chargers 

barney, raincover, tool kit, changing bag 

semi-automatic thru-the-lens light meter 

studio rig for automatic follow-focus optional 

16mm flatbed in completely equipped editing room 

3/4 inch video screening facilities 


250 West 57th Street, New York NY 10019 


535 B [Ha 


377 Broadway, New York City 10013 • 966-4900 





FOR SALE: About 150 used film shipping- 
boxes, 10/15 minute size, can & reels included, 
good condition. Sold as is, whole batch or 
quantities. Call afternoonr or evening; if not in 
leave message. Paul B. Ross, 109 West 21 St., 
NY NY 10011, (212) 675-8708. 

FOR SALE: 4-plate Moviola flatbed editing 
machine — privately owned. Perfect condi- 
tion; $4,500. Call Karen at (212) 877-4085 or 
Cathy at (212) 246-4180. 

FOR SALE: Sony V32 V2" R/R 60 min. 
videotapes, "like new", guaranteed, only $6. 
each. Sony DXC 1600, portable color camera, 
excellent condition, $1,100. JVC GC 4800 
2-tube portable color camera, $1,000. H.A.V.E. 
PO Box 209, Livingston NY 12541, (518) 

FOR SALE: Canon Zoom Lens 6:1, 18-108, f1.6 
in perfect condition. Fast lens enhances low- 
light situations. Fine for many video/film 
cameras as well as for Sony 1610 or 1600 
cameras. Call Jeff Byrd (212) 233-5851. 

WANTED: Sony AV 3400 cameras. Will pay 
$500 each. Condition of tube does not matter, 
but camera body (interior and exterior) must 
be in good shape. Must have original or similar 
lens. Contact David Pillard, Dakota Com- 
munications, 850 Seventh Ave., Suite 203, NY 
NY 10019, (212) 989-8825. 

FOR SALE: Moviola UL20cS, Uhler RE36-16 op- 
tical printer, crystal Frezzi, 12-120 Ang, 5CP 
Plc4 mags, CP case & accessories, 10mm 
Zwitar lens, Sony VO 1800 recorder. Call G. 
Nugent, (212) 486-9020. 

FOR SALE: 16mm CP camera body 
(non-reflex), good condition. 3 400' 
magazines, 2 batteries, chargers, case; $2,000 
or best offer. Also Angenieux lens, 9.5-95mm 
with side finder, $3,500. Will sell separately. 
Contact Mark Freeman, 1101 Masonic Ave., 
San Francisco CA 94117, (415) 861-3885. 

FOR RENT: %" Sony Color video camera/ 
portapaks. Also Vz" b&w. Crew available. Call 
Jeff Byrd (212) 233-5851. 

COMPOSER/PRODUCER of music for films 
has new master tapes available for creative 
film & video productions. For info & sample 
tape contact Mark, (617) 755-3499. 


courses include: Elements of 16mm Produc- 
tion, a 12-session course; a 2-day course in 
%" Videocassette Editing; Reel Impact: Film 
: Programming for Community Groups, a one- 
day workshop designed to help community 
organizers utilize films; and a 12-week Direc- 
tors' Project, which provides film/TV profes- 
sionals with an intensive directorial ex- 
perience with actors. For dates, rates & other 
information about these courses, contact 
YF/VA, 4 Rivington St., NY NY 10002, (212) 

26-30, Las Vegas. Will include sessions on 
graphics and design, engineering, instruc- 
tional tv, production, radio, research, broad- 
cast education. Aimed at the public telecom- 
munication professional. Also special Mini- 
Courses, Video Fair, and Program Exhibition 
Library. Members, $165; non-members, $225. 
Contact: National Association of Educational 
Broadcasters, Annual Conference, 1346 Con- 
necticut Ave. NW, Suite 1101, Washington DC 

industry-sponsored seminar on home 
videotape and disc programming, October 
21-23, NY Sheraton Hotel. Contact Diane 
DiMella, International Audio/Videotape and 
Disc Association (ITA), 10 West 66 St., NY NY 
10023, (212) 787-0910. 

VIDCOM 80, 6th International Videocommuni- 
cations Market, Sept. 29-October 2, Cannes, 
France. Contact John Nathan, 30 Rockefeller 
Plaza, Suite 4535, NY NY 10020, (212) 489-1360. 

Medium. Five sessions with leading experts in 
cable TV from around the country, to inform 
entertainment industry professionals about 
the current nature of the new mass medium 
and the developing patterns for future growth. 
Oct. 13-Nov. 10. Fee: $75. Contact: The Arts, 
UCLA Extension, PO Box 24901, Los Angeles 
CA 90024, (213) 825-9064. 

for 1981 Ohio University Film Conference on 
Film History: Industry, Style and Ideology. 

Panels have been organized in these areas: 
American Cinema, European Film, Japanese 
Cinema, Russian Film, Third World Film, 
History of Women in Film, Film and Literature, 
Film and Comic Book/Comic Strip Art, Art 
History and Film, Methodologies of Film 
History. Persons interested in chairing any of 
the above, or additional panels contact Peter 
Lehman by Sept. 15. Those interested in sub- 
mitting a paper for one of the panels should 
contact: Stephen Andrews, Ohio University 
Film Conference, PO Box 388, Athens OH 
45701 . 

WAFL will offer a series of workshops and 
seminars, taught by area professionals. Class 
sizes will be limited, and fees will be kept as 
modest as possible. Workshops include: Mo- 
tion Picture Lab Practices and Procedures, 
Different Views of the Cinematographer's Art, 
Intro to Film Animation, Lighting for Televi- 
sion, Lighting for Film, Assistant Editing, and 
Film and TV Research-Archival and Commer- 
cial Resources. Contact Washington Area 
Film/Video League, PO Box 6475, Washington 
DC 20009. 

MEETING will be held Oct. 1-5 in San Diego. 
The theme is The Big Picture; special day-long 
courses, offered for credit, on ethics and 
futures research. Other sessions on writing, 
reporting, planning, handling problems at the 

top, technological change, and more. Fees: 
$85-$215. Contact: Women in Communica- 
tions, PO Box 9561, Austin TX 78766. 

VIDEO EXPO NEW YORK '80 will be held at 
Madison Square Garden, Oct. 21-23. Work- 
shops, exhibits and seminars, all for only $5. 
For more information, contact Knowledge In- 
dustry Publications, 2 Corporate Park Dr., 
White Plains NY 10604. 

fering workshops in film/video production. Plan- 
ned for fall are animation, video and Super-8 
production, 16mm editing, slide-show produc- 
tion, lighting, scriptwriting, sound recording, 
film acting and directing, film/video funding 
and distribution, accounting and taxation for 
producers, and production of social documen- 
tary films. Fall term begins Oct. 15. All 
workshops open to general public. For more 
information write: BF/VF, 1126 Boylston St., 
Boston MA, or call (617) 254-16.16. 


available. Fully-equipped rooms, 24-hour ac- 
cess in security building. 2 6-plate Steen- 
becks, 6-plate Moviola flatbed, sound transfers 
from Vi" to 16mm & 35mm mag, narration 
recording, extensive sound effects library, 
interlock screening room. Long-term Moviola 
rental in tri-state area, 3 month minimum. Con- 
tact Cinetudes Film Prods. Ltd., 377 Broad- 
way, NY NY 10012, (212) 966-4600. 

FOR RENT: Large modern comfortable editing 
room, 4 & 6-plate Moviola flatbeds. Flexible, 
reasonable rates. Midtown location. Call 
Karen, (212) 877-4085 or Cathy, (212) 246-4180. 

Steenbeck available in western Massachu- 
setts area. Also, Nagra 4.2 and sound ac- 
cessories available for rental use. Contact 
Green Mountain Post Films, PO Box 229, 
Turners Falls MA 01376, (413) 863-4754/ 

FOR RENT: Editing Facilities. 2 picture KEM 
in fully-equipped editing room with 24-hour ac- 
cess near 11 St. & Broadway. Also access to 
sound transfers from Va " to mag track, or from 
mag track to mag track. Contact Jacki Ochs, 
(212) 925-7995. 


makers' Conference will be held in November. 
Categories include student, 8mm, experimen- 
tal, documentary, animation and commercial 
films. A filmmakers conference will run con- 
currently with the festival. Called Making It as 
a Successful Independent Filmmaker, it will 
be geared to practical issues. For information 
contact GLFF, 815 N. Cass St., Milwaukee Wl 
53202, (414) 277-7777. 

Nov. 11-16, is considering documentaries (film 
and video) for screening. Contact Robert 



Daudelin, Cinematheque Quebecoise, 335 de 
Maisonneuve Boul. E., Montreal, Quebec H2K 
1K1 Canada. 

HEMISFILM '81, to be held Feb. 1-4, 1981, is 
accepting entries until Nov. 25. For informa- 
tion, contact International Fine Arts Center of 
the Southwest (IFACS), One Camino Santa 
Maria, San Antonio TX 78284, (512) 436-3209. 

COMPETITION is accepting film submissions 
until Oct. 3. Eligible: any independently pro- 
duced film (16 or 35mm only), intended for the 
commercial marketplace, that received all or 
part of its financial and/or creative resources 
from the region in which it was initiated and 
made. Running time: 70 minutes or longer. 
Finalists receive substantial cash prizes and 
travel expenses to the Festival, held Jan. 13-18 
in Salt Lake City. For entry forms, call or write: 
Lawrence Smith, Coordinator, IFFC, US Film 
Festival, Irving Commons, 1177 E. 2100 South, 
Salt Lake City UT 84106, (801) 487-8571. 

TIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, March 24-28, 1981, 
will be accepting videotape productions on 
equal footing with 16mm film. Tapes and films 
will compete within their respective divisions 
for Silver Electra awards, but against each 
other for the Best of Festival Golden Electra. 
Cash awards totalling $5,000 will be awarded. 
For information write BIEFF, Box 78-SD8, 
University Station, Birmingham AL 35294. 


27-19, 1981; for institutions and organizations 
such as libraries, churches, museums, 
schools, clubs and businesses of all types 
who use film in their operation. Videotape is 
being added this year on an experimental 
basis. Entry deadline December 1, 1980. For 
more information, contact River City Film Con- 
ference, PO Box 14232, Omaha NE 68124, (402) 

SOUTHERN CIRCUIT program will be screened 
at 6 sites in the South, December 10-16. 
Theme: the autobiographical film. Include in- 
formation about running time and details on 
why the film is autobiographical, as well as in- 
formation about the film's production. Contact 
Charles Lyman, Atlantic Productions, 10002 
Lola St., Tampa FL 33612. 

November 1, 1980. Each filmmaker whose 
work is selected will receive $3,000 and super- 
vise 35mm blow-up of the film. Filmmaker 
must be an American citizen; film must be 10 
minutes or less, and must qualify for P or PG 
rating. Film should not already be in 35mm 
distribution, and artist must own all rights. For 
more information or entry blank, write SFS, c/o 
Foundation for Independent Video and Film, 
625 Broadway, 9th Floor, NY NY 10012. 

SOHO TELEVISION Distributes contemporary 
art over Manhattan Cable. Contact: Artists's 
Television Network, 152 Wooster St., NY NY 
10012, (212) 254-4978. 


MATCHING FUNDS up to $1,000 available to 
Minnesota non-profit organizations outside 
metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul, for in- 


dependent film/video demonstration projects: 
residencies, workshops & festivals. Technical 
assistance with programming, budgeting & 
grant writing also available. Contact Kate 
Kinney, Minnesota State Arts Board, 2500 Park 
Ave., Minneapolis MN 55404, (612) 341-7149 or 
toll-free (800) 652-9747. 

Established 4 years ago with funding from 
NEA and Ford Foundation, it is the major 
source of production support for new 
documentaries designed for national PTV 
broadcast. Indies (US citizens and resident 
Americans) are eligible to apply for up to 
$80,000 for production funds for new docu- 
mentaries or for completion of works-in- 
progress. Materials will be reviewed first by a 
pair of screeners (an indie and a PTV staff per- 
son). Approximately 25 pairs will be working 
simultaneously in different parts of the coun- 
try. Their recommendations will be passed on 
to an Advisory Panel. Decisions will be an- 
nounced in mid-January, 1981. There is no 
specific application form; contact the IDF at 
the TV Lab, WNET/THIRTEEN, 356 West 58 
Street, NY NY 10019, (212) 560-3194, after mid- 
Sept, to receive brochure outlining informa- 
tion required in the 3-page written proposal. 
Sample work of a completed film or videotape 
(16mm, %" or Vz* reel-to-reel) must also ac- 
company the application. Deadline for receipt 
of the application is Friday, Nov. 14. 


NEA GUIDE TO PROGRAMS is an overview of 
14 NEA programs. It will tell you how to obtain 
guidelines and application packets. To re- 
quest the Guide, and/or a calendar of NEA 
deadlines: Information Processing Office, 
National Endowment for the Arts, 2401 E 
Street NW, Washington DC 20506. 
vides an overview of NEH's 1980-1981 pro- 
grams and deadlines for 1980. Contact Na- 
tional Endowment for the Humanities, 806 15 
St. NW, MS351, Washington DC 20506. 
GADNEY's GUIDE to 1800 International Con- 
tests, Festivals & Grants in Film & Video, 
Photography, TV-Radio Broadcasting, Writing, 
Poetry, Playwriting, Journalism. Written by an 
independent filmmaker; includes over 150 
pages of film and video resources; broken 
down into special interest categories 
(documentaries, animation, etc.); has both an 
alphabetical index and cross-indices. $15.95 
plus $1.75 postage. Order from Festival 
Publications, PO Box 18180, Glendale CA 

VIDEO, by Steve Penny, an independent film- 
maker, contains addresses and information 
about grants from federal agencies, private 
foundations, national, regional and special- 
interest grant programs, scholarships and 
fellowships, and media research grants. Also 
discusses researching and approaching fund- 
ing sources, developing budgets and dealing 
with PBS. $14.95 plus $1.00 for postage and 
handling. Film Grants Research, PO Box 1138, 
Santa Barbara, CA 93102. 

you how to secure your equipment and space 
to help prevent thefts. The booklet outlines 
four steps: identify, secure, control, and in- 

sure; and explains each step. Cost $5.50. 
Available from Don Jorgensen, Wisconsin 
Audiovisual Assn., McKinley I.S.C., 1010 
Huron St., Manitowoc Wl 54220. 

guide for organizations and educators who 
wish to program their own film series. It pro- 
vides synopses of films included in AFI's 
recent series on Native American Film at 
Kennedy Center. Obtain from Peter Bukalski, 
Education Services, AFI, Kennedy Center, 
Washington DC 20566. 

catalogue w/ info on 25 films on energy, the 
environment & the planet is available on re- 
quest. Contact Green Mountain Post Films, 
PO Box 229, Turners Falls MA 01376, (413) 

DENT FEATURE FILM, the transcripts from 
the Northwest Media Project's seminar last 
fall, may be ordered, for $20 (prepaid). The 
192-page publication includes complete 
presentations by speakers in the fields of 
banking, accounting, producing and entertain- 
ment law. Contact Northwest Media Project, 
PO Box 4093, Portland OR 97208. 

DIRECTORY provides detailed information 
about print and broadcast media outlets for 
special audiences: black, European ethnics, 
Hispanics, Jews, older Americans, women, 
and young adults. Available for 6 northeastern 
states, they range in price from $15-$30. For in- 
formation about the directories and other pub- 
lications, contact Burrelle's Media Directories, 
75 E. Northfield Ave., Livingston NJ 07039, 
(201) 992-7070. 

NEW RELEASES from Knowledge Industry 
Publications: Video Discs: the Technology, the 
Applications & the Future; Video in the '80s: 
Emerging Uses for TV in Business, Education, 
Medicine & Government; The Video Register, 
1980-81; Video User's Handbook; The Cable/ 
Broadband Communications Book, 2nd Edi- 
tion; other titles. For more info write KIP Inc., 
2 Corporate Park Dr., White Plains NY 10604. 


MUSEUM INTERNSHIP providing professional 
training in museum film programming. Intern 
will gain experience in film exhibition and col- 
lection, working closely with Curator of Film 
in research, film selection and preparation of 
program notes and related materials. 12-mohth 
internship begins Feb. 1981; offers $8,000 
stipend. Application deadline Nov. 1. For infor- 
mation contact Curator, Film Program, Walker 
Art Center, Vineland Place, Minneapolis MN 
55403, (612)377-7500. 

for supervisory positions in motion picture 
printing-opticals-processing. Motion picture 
experience only. Experienced timers also re- 
quired. Openings on all shifts. Resumes in 
strictest confidence. Write R. Smith, Du Art 
Film Labs, 245 West 55 St., NY NY 10019. 

APPRENTICE WANTED: Help us to complete 
the editing on hour-long documentary. For 
details contact Mark Freeman, 1101 Masonic 
Ave., San Francisco CA 94117, (415) 861-3885. 


EXPERIENCED PRODUCER wanted to assist 
with fundraising & production of independent 
IV2 hour dramatic piece for TV, in early 
stages. Percentage offered. Call Roberta, (212) 

help with use of still photo copyright and per- 
missions. Can pay minimal fees. Call Roberta 
at (212) 874-7255. 

VIDEO ASSISTANT for psychiatric facility. 
Duties include scheduling and operating 
3-camera recording studio, assisting in loca- 
tion recording and postproduction, inventory 
and cataloguing. Requirements: Degree; 2 
years' video production experience; non- 
smoker. Salary: $12-14,000. Send resume to 
Barbara Kristaponis, Payne Whitney Media 
Center, 525 East 68 St., NY NY 10021 or call 
(212) 472-6760. 

HELP WANTED: Robert Rose will be in Atlanta 
in early fall to begin shooting documentary on 
the lives of former radicals from the 60's. 
Anyone interested in assisting, contact Robert 
Rose, 19 Pitman St., Providence Rl 02906, (401) 
351-2357. Please indicate experience. 

OFFICE MANAGER needed at Global Village, 
a video production center. Position requires 
ability to coordinate, knowledge of non-profit 
operations, basic bookeeping, general office 
operations experience, and typing. Call or 
write (include resume): Global Village, 454 
Broome St., NY NY 10013, (212) 966-7526. 

NEGATIVE CUTTER needed to assist with 
small amount of footage to prepare super- 
impositions for lab. Can pay minimal fees. Call 
Roberta at (212) 874-7255. 

WORK WANTED: Independent producer with 
fully equipped industrial quality % " video out- 
fit looking for interesting, funded project to 
work on at reasonable rates. Recently com- 
pleted AFI documentary. Contact Melvin Mc- 
Cray, Media Genesis, PO Box 2254, Brooklyn, 
NY 11202, (212)858-1075. 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR needed for media arts 
organization. Primarily involves publicity of in- 
dependent film showcase, day-to-day ad- 
ministration, coordination of touring film 
packages. Requires some familiarity with in- 
dependent film/video, ability to do own typing. 
Full-time; $10,000 to start; 4 weeks vacation; 
health plan. Starts October. Send resume (do 
not phone) to Center Screen Inc., PO Box 130, 
Cambridge MA 02142. 

SOUNDMAN AVAILABLE with own equip- 
ment. Contact G. Nugent, (212) 486-9020. 


thology of written works by filmmakers, is 
being assembled. No writings from non-film- 
makers will be accepted. Please send manu- 
scripts, Xeroxes, information immediately to 
Martha Haslanger, Artichoke Ink, GPO Box 
1834, NY NY 10116. 

access cable TV series featuring artists & art 
organizations, is seeking a small low-rent 
office space in Manhattan. Would prefer share 
with another non-profit media organization. 
Please contact Ray Matthews or Gary Morgan, 



z> o 


ro _ 










"° z 
5 » 


3 * 

U. "0 

^•' -< 


T3 33 

z 5 
p *- 


o o 

">• z 

> H 

S ^ 

O O 

92 "< 

m 3J 


I Independent: 

VOL.3 NO. 7 -8 

THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Publisher: Alan Jacobs 

Editor: Bill Jones 

Associate Editor: Judith L. Ray 

Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 

Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Josephine Coppa, Compositype Studio 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Jacobs, Executive Director; Leslie 
Tonkonow, Assistant Director; Judith Ray, Public Information Co- 
ordinator; Alan Mitosky, Short Film Showcase Project Administrator; 
Nancy Gerstman, Short Film Showcase Administrative Assistant; John 
Rice, Media Awareness Project Director 

FOREIGN BUYERS, The Independent Feature Project 
and AIVF bring them to New York, Lists of Buyers, 
Panel Discussion and International Rate Sheet. 4 

BUSINESS By Mitchell Block 


and Leslie Tonkonow 

MEDIA CLIPS By John Rice 24 

THE COLUMN By Judy Ray 27 

FESTIVAL '80; Perspectives In Community Video27 



The September 10 AIVF/FIVF Board meeting opened with program updates by staff 
members and a financial report by Alan Jacobs. The following items are highlights 
from these reports. 

THE INDEPENDENT: Advertising has been accepted as of the September issue 
with much success. However, the need for a commissioned advertising represen- 
tative has become apparent. Much discussion centered on policy concerning the 
publication of critical letters and membership views. It was decided that all such 
letters be shown to the Board and that a more encouraging invitation to members 
to attend Board meetings and express their views be published. CETA: The con- 
tinuation of the Media Works project is still being pursued through the possibilities 
of contracting under CETA Title VI or Title VII. MEDIA AWARENESS: Recommenda- 
tions were made concerning AlVF's position on Community Service Grants to PBS 
stations. A calendar of activities was presented which included a presentation to 
WNET's Community Advisory Board on September 15, representation at the 
Transponder Allocation Committee meeting on October 7, a meeting with New 
York City groups using Manhattan cable where collaboration and networking were 
discussed, and a meeting with the Mayor's Office of Motion Pictures to discuss the 
problem of high insurance rates required by independent filmmakers to shoot in 
this city. FESTIVALS: A committee was formed to formulate policy and help build 
up information so that FIVF can assume the role of information service distribu- 
tion. PERSONNEL: Staff evaluations and a general fiscal plan for the organization 
are planned for the next month. 

But the biggest news concerned Alan Jacobs' formal resignation from his post as 
Executive Director, pending his replacement. After two years of full-time commit- 
ment to administration, Alan plans to return to production. A search committee 
was formed to find his replacement and the Executive Committee was expanded 
for the duration of this transitional period. MISC: The Independent Feature 
Project's Feature Film Market was given general support by AIVF. 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor and are 
open to the public. The AIVF/FIVF Board of Directors encourages active member- 
ship participation and welcomes discussion of important issues. In order to be on 
the agenda contact Jack Willis, chairperson, two weeks in advance of meeting at 
(212) 921-7020. 

The next two meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, Dec. 2 & Jan. 6 

Both will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. Dates and times, however, are subject to last 
minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to confirm. 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treasurer; 
Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Alan Jacobs, Ex Officio. Stew Bird; Robert Gard- 
ner, Vice-President; Kathy Kline, Secretary; Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane 
Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, Chairperson. 

Dr. John Colkin and Alan Jacobs at Alan's Farewell Party. 


Moderator- Michael Fitzgerald 

The following transcripted panel discussion featuring foreign 
buyers from the major centers in Europe and Canada was held 
this October in New York as part of the Second Annual In- 
dependent Feature Film Market, co-sponsored by the Indepen- 
dent Feature Project and the AIVF. 

Feature Films from all over the U.S. were screened for foreign 

and Domestic buyers and panels were held to discuss the 
nature of the International market. 

The outcome was a great success for those involved and a 
major advancement for the independent community at large. 
Further information on the Second Annual Independent 
Feature Film Market, (as well as the second part of the follow- 
ing transcript) will be presented in our next issue. 

MF: First Roland Probst. Could you tell us about CICEA? 

Roland Probst: Yes. It means International Confederation of 
Art and Experimental Films. This is a European organization, 
it's an umbrella organization and it's the top organization of 
various national European associations. That is covering 
movie theatres that specialize in art movies: art and ex- 
perimental theatres. It's quite an important organization 
because lately — in Cannes — it was decided that CICEA 
should form business enterprises. We don't look for Bronson 

— I have nothing against him — but still, artistic films that 
can find the right audiences, we are showing them to the right 
people, customers. I think that's in very short terms what the 
CICEA wants to do, and is about to do. 

MF: Nicole Jouvet, president Interama Films, Paris and New 

Nicole Jouvet: I am a distributor. I'm involved especially in 
television, so I won't be able to give you any advice about 
theatrical distribution in France but I know a lot about the 
television market. As there is nobody from television, I will be 
able to answer your questions and I will be very practical 
because the market is difficult. But there are a few slots 
where you can put your films. So perhaps we can start with 
the feature film. 

For television you have only two outlets for the feature films 
you are making. One is a program which has been released for 
years. There of course the film must be good, but it's more the 
topic or subject, the theme which is of importance. This pro- 
gram, having been on for years, has had everything on already. 
So, we start again, and you have a small chance. 

Another thing that's new and perhaps interesting to you: there 
is an ever-growing fight between the film industry and televi- 
sion in France. Each television station is not allowed to show 
more than such a number of feature films. Of course the 
audience only wants feature films. Also, out of this number, 
fifty percent must be French feature films. So there is a real 
problem for the program controllers. And they try to avoid this 
in buying TV films. These TV films must be well-made and 
entertaining. I think at this point we wish to get out of the 
black drama (or dark things or depressing subjects) and that 
will obviously narrow the field of your entries. 

Then you have the documentaries: you have 52 minute 
documentaries that at this point are nearly impossible to sell 

— I sell six a year, and they must be very visual, very spec- 
tacular. I forgot to tell you that French television has 
discovered the rating, which is a very unfortunate event. So 
that has killed the documentary except if they are really 
outstanding. There is always a market for something you cer- 
tainly don't do, which is wildlife adventure. 


There is a market for shorts, and I'm personally looking for 
very good visual shorts, less than 10 minutes long, because 
there is a need for that. The nice thing in television is that 
things change every week. So I say today that I need good 
shorts: better speed on, because in a fortnight's time perhaps 
this will be different. I think the thing that's going to be of the 
greatest interest is full production. Also, I would like to say 
that the prices quoted in Variety of France are unfortunately 
extremely optimistic but I will come back in detail on that. 

MF: Thank you. Sharon Singer, president, Dabara Films, 

Sharon Singer: I founded my company five years ago after 
working for two other Canadian distribution companies. I've 
also been involved in production myself, and I'm getting into 
feature production now, which is one of the solutions for an 
independent Canadian distributor since the market in Canada 
is very small for independents. Basically the Canadian market 
is very much based on the American market. There are dif- 
ferences in our cultures; but in terms of theatre-going, up until 
two years ago both of our theatrical chains were foreign- 
owned, one of them by Rank and one of them by Gulf & 
Western. The one owned by Rank was sold to a Canadian 
group, which really hasn't made any differences in their 
policies and their programming, and the American chain is 
still American. They control, I would say, 95% of all the 
theatres. And all of the major American products is what they 
play. In other words, with 6% of the market, which is the size 
of the English Canadian market in terms of the United States, 
they have to play the same number of films as are played here. 
Therefore there are always more films for them to play, there's 
no shortage. And it is difficult to get any kind of film shown 
theatrically. There are, however, some independent theatres, 
most of which are repertory theatres that play films that have 
been successful. In other words they play second- or third-run. 

So the Canadian market is not an easy one to break. However, 
my company has been successful with certain independent 
pictures, one of which is Not a Pretty Picture, which Martha 
Coolidge did. We took advantage of the Toronto Film Festival, 
which the film played in, as a springboard to launch the film. 
We brought Martha to Toronto and we did a PR tour with her, 
which the Festival didn't organize. But one of the things I was 
going to say is that it's very important when a film is released, 
when a feature film is brought to the marketplace. I think pro- 
bably the best time is the Cannes Film Festival, because even 
if the film has only been in the marketplace in Cannes, if you 
say your stuff has been in Cannes everyone is impressed. 
Most people don't know that there's a difference between the 
market and the selection and the director's fortnight and so 


So launch your film at Cannes and then go on to other 
festivals. In Canada, Montreal and Toronto are both important 
festivals. Probably Toronto, as of this year, has proven itself 
to be more important than Montreal. And it is a good idea to 
make an arrangement sometime in May or June with a Cana- 
dian distributor for your film so that they can get it in the 
Toronto Film Festival. If you can get it in the Toronto Film 
Festival and you have a distributor, the distributor will work 
with you in order to use the Festival and the reviews and the 
notoriety or whatever (depending on the kind of film) the 
Festival has attained for it in order to launch it theatrically. We 
certainly found with Not A Pretty Picture that that was a very 
good policy. We played it theatrically afterwards and then 
launched it in a non-theatrical market. We did almost as well 
with that film in Canada, Martha tells me, as the American 
distributor did in the States — which is saying a lot here, 
frankly, considering how small our market is. 
In terms of my particular philosophy of distribution: basically, 
I select films that I really believe in. A film has to have a 
market so it can't be something that is simply a personal 
choice. But I choose films that are either best of the genre — 
one of the best horror films or the best comedy or whatever — 
or a unique work that I feel is so special that people must see it 
because they'll never get a chance to see anything like it, or a 
work of lasting value such as Madame Rosa, which I handled. 
And sometimes I'll take a film that I love such as The Handy- 
man, which came in second in the drama festival as the popular 
choice, and which is in the New York Film Festival. So it's 
based on seeing the film. I believe in putting the energy that 
the film has in it into the distribution of it. 

MF: Poul Malmkjaer from Denmark. 

Poul Malmkjaer: I represent a government-controlled station, 
only one channel. We buy a hundred and ten features a year. 
And that's it. I'm in charge of that. I select the features that I 
like personally and that I want to see again. That's the only 
way I can answer any critics on my program. I don't think my 
Scandinavian colleagues have arrived yet, so if you want to 
ask any questions about Norway and Sweden I think I can 
answer for them. The price that we pay is in this paper that 
you already have. It's not much, as Nicole will testify. But I 
think we do have a very good selection of features in Danish 
television. Being a non-commercial station, I'm allowed to 
choose and program whatever I find is good and worthwhile 
and that's it. Thank you very much. 

MF: Poul, you're the first person I've ever met who ever 
wanted a picture because they wanted to see it again. I think 
it's highly commendable. I suppose Liz Sykes from Polytel will 
have something to say about that grandiose organization. 

Elizabeth Sykes: We acquire feature films mostly for televi- 
sion distribution. Our strength has been in European televi- 
sion. We're expanding, we now buy worldwide. We will have 
American syndication on very shortly, joining up in the next 
couple of weeks. We are looking mostly for the kind of films 
that can be shown on an international scope. We tend to stay 
away from documentaries. We prefer drama. 

MF: Thanks, Liz. Janice Nelson from the Movie Industry 
Development Board in Los Angeles. 

Janice Nelson: Movie Industry Development Board is a new 
organization. I hope that we will provide a solution for a lot of 
your problems. We've been established as a clearinghouse 
between independent investors and independent producers. 
We have developed a worldwide network of investors who are 
interested in investing in film. The way our clearinghouse 
operates is, we publish a bi-weekly publication called Film In- 
vestment News which lists projects seeking financing. We're 
entirely democratic. We require only: one, a completed screen- 

play, and two, a fully filled-out application. Applications are 
available outside, and I hope you'll all take advantage of this 
business. We're brand-new and we're clearly optimistic that 
this is going to be a wonderful opportunity for us all. I'll 
answer any questions you have later. 

MF: I hope it works. David Lachterman from Belgium. 

David Lachterman: Though some would say otherwise, 
Belgium is not a corporation but a country in Western Europe, 
as small as Vermont or New Hampshire. We have two lan- 
guages in this small country, Flemish and French. More or 
less eleven million inhabitants, five million French-speaking 
people and more or less six million Flemish-speaking people. I 
happen to be in charge of the film and fiction department; also 
documentaries, but less; short films; almost everything, even 
children's films, etc. We have two French channels and two 
Flemish channels, four channels for the whole country. We 
are supposed to be the most cabled country in the world. 82% 
of the viewers are linked to cable and they have between 13 
and 16 channels available: all the French channels, Dutch 
channels, Luxembourg, Germany. 

We put on the air between 200 and 250 motion pictures every 
year. All kinds of pictures: commercial pictures, less commer- 
cial pictures, and I hope I'm not wrong but I think we are the 
only western country in Europe that has put on the air in the 
same season Alambrista and Northern Lights. That's the good 
news. The bad news is that we don't pay very much: only twice 
what Denmark pays. You'll survive. 

MF: Of course in Denmark they watch the pictures more than 
once. Now I understand we're to open up the field to discus- 
sion on several issues. I assume there are a lot of people here 
that make pictures, not just buy and sell them. I think the 
discussion should be wide enough to include all of us. 

Q: I gathered from the comments that documentaries are not 
so much in favor as dramatic films with various television net- 
works. In terms of documentaries, are there particular 
thematic materials or styles that are more appropriate for 
European television than others? I'm thinking now particularly 
of themes relating to Americana or that sort of thing that 
might hold particular appeal for your viewers. 
George Alexander: Actually I can't answer that, because it 
really depends on what kind of film it is and if it's interesting 
subject matter. If it's intelligent and aesthetically satisfying, 
then our sales or somebody else might be interested. But you 
know the question is really too general to be answered. 

Malmkjaer: I think there's a slight misunderstanding. In Scan- 
dinavia there's a tremendous interest in documentaries. My 
field is feature films and that's because I belong to that 
department in Danish television. We have another department, 
cultural department, they take care of the documentaries. 
They buy a lot of documentaries and apart from the sort of 
documentaries where penguins are seen walking in a funny 
way, there's a common interest in films about contemporary 
America. I think we have quite a number of documentaries, 
new ones, on what's going on right now. So there's a lot of in- 
terest in that in Scandinavia. 

Q: I would like to ask everybody what kind of co-production 
deals are available; how do you deal with them; what kind of 
money are you talking about; at what stages do you begin to 
commit to co-production? 

Sykes: I think the answer to that obviously depends again on 
the subject matter and the project itself. You can come to us 
at just about any stage. Realistically, obviously we would 
prefer if you had some committments elsewhere. When we're 
talking in terms of a pre-sale, a guarantee against television 
distribution, the kind of money that we're going to put up is 



not going to finance your film entirely. Therefore any money 
that we would offer you would be contingent upon your find- 
ing other financing to complete the film. 

Q: Would you be more specific? 

Sykes: Without getting into actual figures, we calculate on a 
certain film — given the talent involved, subject matter, 
whatever — that we would be able to sell it on a worldwide 
basis for a certain amount of money. We're not going to give 
you more than that. Again, without getting into specifics, 
looking at the sheet you can get some idea if you start adding 
up these figures. Realistically, the prices that are paid by the 
European television stations are — I think we at one point 
calculated that the American market perhaps represents 70% 
of the global sale, and you would get 30% of your money from 
Europe and outside territories. Therefore you cannot expect to 
get a million dollars from us when a film is going to cost a 
million dollars to make, because we won't recoup it in the 
sales. That's just global mathematics. 

One thing that I didn't mention in the context of Polytel is that 
we have production companies in six of the major countries of 
Europe. If you have a subject that should be shot, because of 
its nature, in France, for example, it is feasible for us to pro- 
vide you with production facilities abroad. We could establish 
co-production with one of our European counterparts. I also 
think at some point my German colleague should explain to 
you the role of the Berlin Senate. There are various forms of 
financing in Europe. Polytel does this, but there are also 
governmental forms as well. We should get into that later. But 
the main thing is to come to us with a project at an early 
stage. Very often we will ride them through with you. We may 
ask you to come back when you have a completed script. We 
usually don't finance the script. We may say we want to look 
at the film after it is completed as a straight acquisition. But 
don't be discouraged, because there might be another project 
that we might want to come into at an early stage. It really 
does depend on the nature of the project. 

Hans Brockman: I would like to make one point very clear 
here. At this table you have two types of people facing you: 
people in charge of a company and distributing or co- 
producing films, and representatives of TV channels. Our in- 
terests can slightly or totally and completely differ, and I 
would like you not to be confused with that. I mean the in- 
terests of our Swiss colleague may be one thing and the in- 
terests of my Danish colleague may be totally different. To 
answer to the cable problem: it's very easy to sell a film to a 
cable country such as Belgium. You first sell it to Belgium and 
then you can sell it all around in Europe, because there is no 
problem. In Belgium it's only in the country and then you can 
sell it to France, you can sell it to Germany. It's very easy to 
do instead of freezing the film for five years and not getting a 
cent out of it. 

Q: I'd like to address my question to Janice Nelson. I'd like 
you to elaborate more on your situation out in California: the 
motion picture, movie industry development, and how you 
foresee independents being financed by your organization. 

Nelson: The service is completely free to producers. We do 
charge our investors who are subscribing to our service. And 
we take a five percent finder's fee on monies raised through 
our efforts. As I said before, we are listing projects in a bi- 
weekly publication. Right now the organization is oriented 
mostly toward theatrically-released fiction feature films. 
However, we're not excluding any possibilities. 

Q: Are you prepared to finance entire productions? What 
generally do you do? 

Nelson: We do not finance. We provide the information. In 
this bi-weekly newsletter we list projects seeking financing. 

The information on the projects comes directly from our ap- 
plication, which is filled out by the producer, so that the infor- 
mation in our listing is in the producer's own words. 

Q: Who reads the bi-weekly publication? 

Nelson: The bi-weekly publication is read by investors, who 
have indicated they have sufficient levels of discretionary in- 
come to qualify as realistic film investors, given the amount of 
money needed to finance a film. 

Q: On what basis do these people finance a picture? Why? 

Nelson: There are probably as many reasons as there are 
people out there. I think that these are the kind of people who 
ordinarily would gamble their money on oil wells or diamonds 
or what-have-you. They think that movies are funny. Perhaps 
they think that they're going to get to go to Hollywood and 
meet Bo Derek. We're not really sure. There may be as many 
out there who feel they want to be responsible for seeing that 
one wonderfully brilliant movie made that otherwise would not 
have been made. 

Q: Are people interested in financing pictures that do not 
come with large packages, famous directors, stars? 

Nelson: There are as many interests as there are investors. 
Some of them, I'm sure, are only interested in big packages 
with big stars. So I wouldn't say that none of them are in this 
for film profit reasons; they're all interested in making money. 
However, I think that anything has a fair shot at this point. Our 
first newsletter is going out next week, so that as yet we have 
not had any responses. We can't say yes, they seem to be 
going for this type of film or that type of film. 

Q: How many people are on the mailing list? 

Nelson: At the moment we're talking about something around 
seven thousand people. The deals are negotiated entirely bet- 
ween the producers and the investors. So if they want final cut 
it's up to you to deal with that investor. 

Q: It seems to me that you are putting this information into a 
publication that's going out to seven thousand people 
throughout the United States. 

Nelson: Throughout the world. 

Q: Throughout the world? Then that definitely would con- 
stitute a public offering. I want to ask you where does that 
stand with the Securities and Exchange Commission, because 
that's a real nightmare. 

Nelson: We are positioned with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission very carefully, we're walking a very thin line. But 
it does not constitute an offering; this is purely information. 

Q: Kind of like a lonely hearts thing? 

Nelson: Yes, exactly. The LA Times described us as marriage 
brokers for lonely scripts. We are totally non-judgemental; we 
are not recommending these projects, we are merely inform- 
ing these investors that these projects exist, should they be 

Q: That's not a public offering for you, but what about for 
someone who places a listing in your newsletter? 

Nelson: Listing in our newsletter does not constitute an offer- 

Q: Why? It would seem to. 

Nelson: If you are worried that listing in our newsletter con- 
stitutes a public offering, you should talk to your lawyer 
before you list with us. Most of the producers who have 
already listed with us have indeed checked with their lawyers 
first, and they've come to us. I am not a lawyer and I can't tell 
you why it doesn't constitute an offering, but our S&G lawyers 


have told us we are finders, we are not offering. We have 
received at this point many listings from substantial pro- 
ducers in Los Angeles who have cleared it through their 

Q: Who are some of the major principals in the company, 
what is the financial grounding of the company? I just want to 
know if it's connected with any large corporations, and the 
qualifications of the people. 

Nelson: The company was founded by a gentleman named 
Chase Revel who publishes Entrepreneur magazine and heads 
up the American Entrepreneurs' Association. As such, he has 
guided many business people towards lucrative business suc- 
cesses. He's helped a lot of people get rich, therefore he's 
trusted. The reason he started the organization is because his 
headquarters are in Los Angeles, and these people started 
coming to him and saying, "Hey, what movies should I invest 
in?" He gathered that telling somebody what movie to invest 
in is kind of like telling them what horse to bet on. So rather 
than go that direct route, he came up with this idea for a clear- 
inghouse organization, to provide information about every- 
thing that's available to invest in to people who want to invest, 
and let the parties concerned make their own decisions. 

Q: What's your policy in terms of product that's advertised, if 
investors are interested? Do they contact you or do they con- 
tact the producer? And second, who pays your fee and what 
kind of agreements do you require from either the producer or 
from the investor in regard to that? 

Nelson: To answer the first question, the process goes like 
this. If an investor is interested in something that he's seen 
listed, he contacts us. We send him a copy of the screenplay, 
marked "This is not an offering", "Confidential", "For your 
eyes only", "Don't show it to anybody or you will self- 
destruct". Should the investor then respond to the screen- 
play, the investor is given the name and phone number and ad- 
dress of the producer, the producer is given the name and 
phone number and address of the investor. Then it's up to 
them. Our five percent finder's fee comes from the producer. 
We have absolutely no way of enforcing that. We expect that 
we're going to get ripped off. 

Q: I have a question about a different topic. How restrictive 
are the local content rules in selling films outside the United 
States? Can we use co-production arrangements to get 
around these rules, or are they just something that people tell 
you when they don't want to buy your films? 

MF: Local content, what exactly do you mean? 

Q: Local content rules, in England I think. 

MF: He means quota. 

Q: Quota. Eighty-five percent of the programming has to be 
produced in the United Kingdom. 

MF: Who would like to answer that question? 

Singer: In Canada, sixty percent of the content of television 
has to be Canadian. Co-productions between Canada and the 
United States are very difficult right now, because we also 
have — similar to Germany — a hundred percent tax write-off 
for investors in feature and short films. They must be Cana- 
dian certified films, and that means that the majority of the 
film must have Canadian elements, in six points out of ten 

based on a scale. The producer must be Canadian in any case; 
Canadian producers can bring in certain American or foreign 
elements but it really can't be a full Canadian-American co- 
production. We do, however, have agreements with certain 
other countries, like Israel, Germany, France and so forth, 
where we can do co-productions. A co-production of that kind 
does enable both producers to bring in other talent or 
associates who are neither Canadian or French. But we don't 
have an agreement between Canada and the US, and that is 
very difficult. 

Q: We've been talking a lot about co-productions. It's general- 
ly a very conservative line that you get on that kind of thing, 
naturally. But aside from co-productions, there is such a thing 
as a pre-sale guarantee type of deal. For instance, a filmmaker 
who can actually get up the budget to do a film, has investors 
willing to put money into a film, but wants to give some kind of 
assurance to those people that in fact there are various people 
willing to throw it up on the TV screen when it's finished, or on 
the theatre screen. 

Sykes: It's a question we've raised ourselves, actually. Very 
often the difference between a presale and a co-production 
cannot be distinguished. It is often a question of semantics. It 
also means, in the case of a co-production that we want to be 
considered a co-production, we will give you deficit financing 
or presale guarantee money. Just ask that it be on the title 
somewhere in the credits: "In association with Polytel Incor- 
porated" or whatever. In the case of approved co-productions, 
you can go one step further, which means actually having a 
European producer as a counterpart, working with you from 
the early stages on in script development, casting, etc. I would 
define it by saying if we put up money there's a guarantee 
against foreign distribution, on a presale basis. There are cer- 
tain cases in which we would put up more money than would 
be the normal presale and would want some points, but that 
has not happened, at least as long as I've been with Polytel. 
But it could feasibly happen. That would definitely be a 
straight co-production. But it is semantics. 

Q: In terms of presale, it seems to me that there's a breakdown 
in definition at the point, when does the money come in? The 
question that I was asking was not about money coming at an 
earlier stage. I'm talking now about sale of a finished product, 
but with some kind of guarantee against that, when the pro- 
duct is finished. I didn't want to have any confusion on that 
point. It seemed to me that, in terms of the presale and the co- 
production that can't be distinguished, you're talking about 
another kind of thing where you actually put in money up front. 

Sykes: It does depend on the deal itself. Obviously, from the 
investor's point of view, he likes to put in the money as late as 
possible, particularly given current interest rates. Also, if a 
film is going to be released theatrically, it means it's not going 
to air on television until a much later date. What is usually 
done is a step deal, so the money comes at a different time. 

Q: And of course the money can be inter-financed? 

Sykes: Yes. By the way, we have just done Cosmos. I'm not 
plugging this because it's running against Marilyn Monroe on 
Sunday night, but that's an example of something that was 
made for television, in which there are a number of co- 
production partners. So it is feasible and we're very prone to 
that. We're very open to it. 

Foreign Buyers List 

The Foreign Buyers List was compiled for the Second Annual Independent Feature Film Market. 

Guenaneche Abderahmane 
Radiodiffusion TV Algerienne 
21 Boulevard Des Martyrs 

Mr. John M. Lachlan 
Austrama Television PTY LTD 
0/10 Network Australia 
Hawthorn Road Nunawading 
Melbourne 3131 

Mr. Russel Watkins 

Nine TV Network Australia 

GPO Box 4088 

Sydney 2001 


Mr. Heinz Donnenberg 
Osterreichischer Rundfunk 
Wurzburggasse 30 

Mr. Charles Carter 
Broadcasting Corporation of 

The Bahamas 
PO Box 1347 

Mr. Hamad Rashid Al Mutlak 

Bahrain Television 

Ministry of Information 

PO Box 1075 



Mr. N. A. Almasood 
Bangladesh Television 
Television Bhaban 
Dacca 19 

Mr. Prosper Ver Bruggen 
Belgishe Radio en Televisie 
52 Boulevard August Reyer 
1040 Brussels 

Mr. Jozef Coolsaet 

Belgische Radio en Television (BRT) 

Reyerslaan 52 

1040 Brussels 


Mr. Jacques Boigelot 
Radio Television Beige 
52 Boulevard August Reyer 
1040 Brussels 

Mr. Robert Dethier 
Radio Television Beige 
52 Boulevard August Reyer 
1040 Brussels 

Mr. George Jetter 

Radio Television Beige (see above) 

Mr. R. Wangermee 

Radio Television Beige (see above) 

Sr. Jorge Joas Saad 
Radio E Televisao Bande 
Rua Radiantes N. 13 
Sao Paulo 

Sr. Luiz Eduardo Borgerth 

TV Globo 

Rua Lopes Unitas 303 

Jardim Botanico 

Rio de Janeiro 


Sr. Jose Roberto Fillippelli 
TV Globo (see above) 

Mr. Dato James Millar 
Radio Television Brunei 
Jalan Elisabeth Kedua 
Bandar Seri Begawan 

Mr. Nikola Statkov 
Bulgarian TV-Telerimpex 
29 rue San Stefano 
Sofia 1504 

Sr. Alfreddo Abba 

Corporacion de TV de la Universidad 

Catolica de Chile, Lira 46 
Apartado Postal 14600 

Eleodoro Rodriguez 

Corporacion de TV de la Universidad 

Catolica de Chile, Lira 46 
Apartado Postal 14600 

Herman Garcia Barzellatto 

Television Nacional de Chile 

Bellavista 0990 



Mrs. Kian Yuhoue 

Bureau d'Administration de la Radio 

Diffusion de la Republique 

Mr. Joseph Gabio Moungabio 
Ministere de I'information et 

des PTT 
Station TV-BP 
2241 Brazzaville 

Sra. Silena Ulrich 

LatinoAmericana de Television 

Channel 11 

Calle 7 Y 9 Avenida 10 

San Jose 

Costa Rica 

Sr. Alfonso Portocarrero Arguel 
Sistema Nacional de Radio Y TV 

La Uruca 

Apartado Postal 7 
1980 San Jose 
Costa Rica 

Sr. Rene Ipcado 
Television Canal 7 
Calle 12 Apt. 3876 
San Jose 
Costa Rica 

Sr. Antonio Rodriguez 

ICAIC 23-12 




Sr. Pastor Vega 
Icaic 23-12 

Mr. Juan Cabanas Carbo 
Television Cubana 
Calle 23 N 258 Edificio 
Radiocentro Vedado 

Mrs. Maro Theodossiadou 

Cyprus Broadcasting Corp. 

PO Box 4824 



Dr. J. Jerabkova 
Ceskoslovensky Filmexport 
Vaclavske Nam 28 
111 45 Praha 1 

Tatjana Synekova 
Czechoslovak TV/Telexport 
Gorkeho Nam 29-30 
CS 11150 Prague 


!. C. Lauritzen 

Cultural Department 

Danmarks Radio 


DK - 2860 Soeborg 


Mr. Jorgen Oldenberg 
Danmarks Radio (see above) 

Mr. Jorn Birkelund 

Film Office 

Tv Byen 

DK 2860 Soeborg 


Jannik Hastrup 
LI VL Strup 
Kragevej 4 
2900 Hellerup 

Ms. Michel Chamis 

Radiodif fusion-Television 

De Djibouti 



Mr. Luis Rivas 
Radio TV Dominicana 
Calle Dr. Tejada 
Florentino 8 PO Box 969 
Santo Domingo 
Dominican Republic 

Mr. Louis Hanna 

Cadena Ecuatoriana de TV 

Telecentro Canal 10 

Aguirre 223 Casilla 673 



Mr. Xavier Alvarado 
Corporacion Ecuatoriana de TV 
Cerro del Carmen Calilla 1239 

Mrs. Waltraud Pusl 
ARD/Bayerischer Rundfunk 
Fundfunkplatz 1 
8000 Munchen 
West Germany 

Mr. Roland Paul 
Fernsehen der DDR 
Winsstr 42 
1055 Berlin 
East Germany 

Mrs. Aida Abd El Aziza Ismail 
Egyptian Broadcasting & TV 
Federation-Economic Sector 
PO Box 2233 


Mr. David Little 
Anglia Television Limited 
Anglia House 
Norwich NR1 3JG 

Mr. Charles Denton 

ATV Network Limited 

ATV Centre 

Bridge Street 


West Midlands B1 2JP 


Mr. Gunnar Rugheimer 
BBC Television 
Television Centre 
Wood Lane 
London W12 7RJ 

Mr. Alan Howden 


Room 302 Union House 

65-69 Shepherds Bush Green 

London W12 7RJ 


Mr. Malcolm Heyworth 
Chatsworth Television Ltd 
97-99 Dean Street 
London W1V 5RA 

Mr. John Billett 
Dubai Radio & Colour TV 
7A Grafton Street 
London W1X 4HB 

Mr. Alex Mair 
Grampian Television Ltd. 
Queens Cross 
Aberdeen AB9 2XJ 

Mr. Leslie Halliwell 
Granada Television Ltd. 
Manchester M60 9EA 

Christophe Grace 
HTV Wales and West 
TV Centre 
PO Box 58 
Cardiff CF1 9XL 

Mr. William Hodgson 
ITN House 
48 Wells Street 
London HP 4DE 

Mr. Vic Gardiner 
London Weekend TV T1d 
South Bank Television Centre 
Kent House Upper Ground 
London SE1 9LT 

Mr. John Dilly 

Southern Television Limited 


Southampton S09 4YQ 


Mr. Tim Riordan 
Thames Television Ltd. 
306-316 Euston Road 
London NW1 

Mr. Don Taffner 
Thames TV International 
149 Tottenham Court Road 
London NW1 

Mr. A. D. Sandford 
Tyne Tees Television 
City Road 

Newcastle upon Tyne 
Tyne & Wear 2E1 2AL 

Mr. Michael Warren 
Westward Television 
Derry's Cross 
Plym Devon PL1 25P 

Mr. Paul Fox 

Yorkshire Television Limited 

Kirkstall Road 


W. Yorkshire LS 3 US 


Mr. Dennis Livson 
Helsinki Cable TV Ltd. 
Asemapaallikonkatu 3 
00520 Helsinki 52 

Mr. Raimo Lahti 

Oy Mainos TV Reklam AB 

44 Pasilankatu 

00240 Helsinki 24 


Mr. Mikko Valtasaari 
Oy Yleisradio AB 
20400 Helsinki 24 

Mr. Ollie Tuomola 

Oy Yleisradio AB 

Finnish Broadcasting Co. 

TV Center 



Mr. Nils Ljungdell 
Oy Yleisradio AB 
(see above) 

Miss Gilberte Chadourne 

Antenne 2 

5-7 Rue de Monttessuy 

75341 Paris 


Mr. Claude Barma 
Antenne 2 Societe National 

de TV en couleurs 
5 et 7 rue Montessuy 
75341 Paris 

Mr. Patrick Brion 

FR 3 

116 Ave. du President Kennedy 

75016 Paris 


Mile Michelle Rebel 
FR 3 (see above) 


M. Francois Xavier de Perier 


75782 Paris 


Roger Diamantis 

Studio St. Andres des Arts 

Rue St. £ndre des Arts 



M. Mitise Dousset 

Tele Monte Carlo 

26 bis Rue Francois 1er 

75008 Paris 


Mr. Jacques Zbinden 

TF 1 

17 rue d I'Arrivee 

75015 Paris 


M. Antonietti 

TF 1 

13/15 rue Cognacq Jay 

75007 Paris 


M. Robert Villeneuve 

TF 1 

(see above) 

Mr. Michel Kingbell 

Radio Television Gabonaise 

BP 150 



Mr. Jurgen Labensky 
ADF (Grosse Fernsehspiel) 
65 Mainz 1 
Postfach 4040 

Mr. Henner Heohs 

Bertramstrasse 8 
6000 Frankfort am Main 
West Germany 

Miss Sylvia Koller 


1 Rundfunkplatz 

8 Munchen 1 

West Germany 

Dr. Dietmar Schings 
Bertramstrasse 8 
6 Frankfort Am Main 
West Germany 

Mr. Hans Brecht 


Studio Hamburg 



West Germany 

Mr. George Alexander 


Appellhofplatz 2 

M500 Koln 1 

West Germany 


Mr. Werner Dutsch 

Appellhofplatz 2 
5000 Koln 1 
West Germany 

Mr. Wilfried Reichardt 

Appellhofplatz 2 
5000 Koln 1 
West Germany 

Mr. Heinz Ungureit 

ZDF "Grosse Fernsehspiel" 

65 Mainz 1 

Postfach 4040 

West Germany 

Mr. Rolf Schweitzer 


65 Mainz 1 

Postfach 4040 

West Germany 

Mr. Christoph Holch 

ZDF "Kleine Fernsehspiel" 

65 Mainz 1 

Postfach 4040 

West Germany 

Mr. Eckart Stein 
ZDF (see above) 

Miss Ursula Stein 
ZDF (see above) 

Mr. Vavaroutsos 

Yened Television 

136 Messoughion Street 



Mr. Hemans Mensah 

Chana Broadcasting House 

PO Box 1633 



Mr. George Valarino 
Gibraltar Broadcasting Corp. 
Welling Front 

Mr. Nassos Katakouzinos 


432 Messoughion Avenue 

PO Box 19 

Aghia Paraskevi 



Mr. Jock Sloan 
Rediffusion Television Ltd. 
81 Broadcast Drive 
Hong Kong 

Mrs. Stella Wong 
Television Broadcast 
77 Broadcast Drive 
Hong Kong 

Mr. Paul Shields 

HK TVB International Ltd. 

Leighton Centre 

77 Leighton Road 

Hong Kong 

Mr. Harry Prins 

Documentary Dept. 


Heuvellan 33 Hilversum 

Postbus 175-1200 AD 

The Netherlands 

Mrs. Theresa Te Nuyl 
Filmzanken VARA-TV 
Heuvellan 33 

Postbus 175-1200 AD 
The Netherlands 

Mr. Hans Beumer 

Program Buying Department 


Postbus 10 


The Netherlands 

Mrs. Maria Preisz 
Bathori U 10 
PO Box 39 

Mr. Endre Gellert 
Maggar Televizio (MTV) 
Budapest V 
Szabadsag Ter 17 

Elinborg Stefansdottir 


Laugavegur 176 



Mr. R. M. Junarto 

Direktorat Televisi Jakarta 

Merdeka Barat #9 




Mr. R. B. Henderson 
Ulster TV 
Havelock House 
Ormeau Road 
Belfast BT7 1EB 

Mrs. Miriam Rothschild 

Israel Broadcasting Authority 

PO Box 7139 



Mr. Flora Palanti 


Viale Mazzini 14 

00195 Roma 


Mrs. Bruna Cossaro 


(see above) 

Pasquale Prunal 


Via Caetana 7 




Tele Union International SPA 
Via Vincenzo Monti 15 

Mr. Jose Roberto Fillippelli 

TV Globo 

Via Latino Malabranca 11 



Mr. Mamadou Berte 
Radiodiffusion Television Ivoirienne 
Abidjan 08 
Ivory Coast 

Mrs. Val Duffus 

Jamaica Broadcasting Corp 

5-9 South Odeon Avenue 

Kingston 10 


Mr. Frank Taniguchi 

Interlingual Television KK 

CPO Box 870 


Mr. Masaomi Mitsuboshi 

MHK 2-1-1 

Jinnan Shibuya-Ku 

Tokyo 150 


Katsuhiro Kirata 

Nippon Television Network Corp 

14 Niban-Cho 


Tokyo 102 


Mr. Farouk Jarrar 
Jordan Television 
PO Box 1041 

Mr. Siggi Fischler 
Brookfield TV 
Im Stadtle 36 
9490 Vaduz 

Mr. Wadud Kamaruddin 

TV Malaysia/RTM 


2210 Kuala Lumpur 


Mr. Ali Salleh 
Television Malaysia 
(see above) 

M. Jean Roland Delaitre 

Mauritius Broadcasting Corp. 

Pasteur Street 

Forest Side 



Fernando Diez Barroso 

Televisa S.A. 

Avenida Chapultepec 18 

Mexico DF 


Sr. Raul Ostos-Martinez 
Television Canal 13 
Periferico Sur 4121 
Mexico 20 DF 

M. Jacques Sallebert 

Tele Monte-Carlo 

16 Boulevard Princesse Chariot 

Monte Carlo 


Abdellatif Bakkali 


1 rue El Brihi 



Mr. Dolf Plaggemars 


Hoge Naarderweg 3 

Postbus 2 

1200 JA Hilversum 

The Netherlands 

Mr. Gerard Smit 
Hoge Naarderweg 3 
Postbus 2 
1200 JA Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

Frank Diamond 

Documentary Development 


Heuvellaan 33 

PO Box 75 1200 AD 


The Netherlands 

Mr. Ko Durieux 
Evangelical Broadcasting Co. 
Dude Amersfoortesweg 79 A 
Post Box 565 

1200 Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

Casper Vogel 

Humanistisch Verbond RTV 
PO Box 114 
3500 AC Utrecht 
The Netherlands 

Mr. Fred Bredschneyder 
Katholieke Radio Omroep/KRO-TV 
Emmastraat 2 
Postbus 9000 

1201 DH Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

Maritgen Carmiggelt 


PO Box 10 

1200 JB Hilversum 

The Netherlands 

Mr. Peter Van Campen 

Schuttersweg 8 
1200 JE Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

Mr. Herman Willem Slager 


Lage Naarderweg 45-47 

Post Box 450 


The Netherlands 

Ms. Jannie Langbroek 


PO Box 11 


The Netherlands 

Mr. Cees Pinxteren 
VARA Television 
Heuvellaan 33 
Postbus 175 
1200 AD Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

Mr. Van Collem 

Veronica Broadcasting Co. 

Larixlaan 1 

1213 SZ Hilversum 

The Netherlands 

Mr. H. R. Douale 

West Indies TV Network TV House 

Sint Marten 


Netherlands Antilles 

Mr. Ambrose Anejo 
Nigerian Television 
PMB 2044 

Miss Grace Eg bag be 
Nigerian Television Authority 
15 Awolowo Road 
1K071 Lagos 

Mr. Marcel Inne 

Office de Radiodiffusion du Niger 

BP 309 



Pal Bang-Hansen 
Film Department 
Oslo 3 

Miss Rigmor Hansson Rodin 
Norsk Rikskringkasting 
Oslo 3 

Miss Berit Rinnan 
NRK (see above) 

Mr. Barrie Parkin 

Television New Zealand 


Queen Street 

PO Box 3819 


New Zealand 

Mr. Zaheer Bhatti 

Pakistan Television Corp Ltd. 

Federal TV Complex 

Constitution Avenue 



Fernando Eleta 
Corporacion Panamena 

de Radiodiffusion 
Apartado 1795 
Zona 1 



Sr. Genaro Delgado Parker 

panamerica de Television 

Arequipa N. 110 



Mr. Jacek Fuksiewicz 
Poltel/Polish TV 
Woronicza 17 
00950 Warsaw 

Sr. Lucilio Narciso 
Radiotelevisao Portuguesa 
AV 5 de Outubro 
187 P-1000 Lisboa 

Mr. Yousuf Muzaffar 

Ministry of Information 

Qatar Television 

PO Box 1944 



Mr. Robin Knox-Grant 
South African Broadcasting 
Henley Road 
2001 Johannesburg 
Republic of South Africa 

Mr. Mustafa Jaghlit 


PO Box 6802 


Saudi Arabia 

Ms. Doreen Paterson 
Scottish Television Limited 
Glasgow G2 3PR 

Mrs. Terrie French 
Private Mail Bag 
Box 1230 
Sierra Leone 

Mrs. Sandra Buenaventura 
Singapore Broadcasting Corp 
Caldecott Hill/Tomason Road 
1129 Maxwell Road 
PO Box 1902 
9038 Singapore 

Jin Hong Park 

Hankuk Munhwa TV Radio 

22, Jung-Dong 

Jung-Ku 100 


South Korea 

Han-Sung Chang 

Korean Broadcasting Systems 

1-799 Yoido-Dong 


150 Seoul 

South Korea 

Sr. Mariano Gonzales Arnao 
Radiotelevision Espanola 
Prado del Rey 

Sr. Segundo Lopez Soria 
Radiotelevision Espanola 
(see above) 

Sr. Juan Moctezuma 

Televisa S.A. 

St. Domingo de Silos 1 

Madrid 16 


Abderahman Hassan Ahmed 

Sudan TV 

PO Box 1094 



Frederik Johan Pengel 

Surinaamse Televisie Stichting 


PO Box 535 



Mr. William Mummery 


Television Broadcasting 

PO Box A 146 



Mr. Bo Johan Hultman 
SR 1 

Sveriges Radio 
S-105 Stockholm 

Hans Elefalk 

SR1 Sveriges Radio 

(see above) 

Mr. Nils Peter Sundgren 
SR 2 (see above) 

Miss Anna-Ida Winnicka 
SR 2 (see above) 

Mr. R. Bengteric 
SR 2 (see above) 

Mr. Bo Bjelfvenstam 
SR 2 (see above) 

Mrs. Doreen Denning 
Swedish Television 
(see above) 

Mr. Frank Hirschfeldt 
Swedish Television 
(see above) 

Birgitta Lingsell 
Swedish Television 
(see above) 

Mr. Mauro Canevascini 
Radio Televisione Delia 

Svizzera Italiana 
Case Postale 6903 

Mr. Peitro Cassina 
(see above) 

Cherubibo Darani 
(see above) 

Cacctus Film 
Postfach 258 Dorfstr 4 
8037 Zurich 

Mr. Michel Buhler 

Societe Suisse de Radiodiffusion 

et Television 
20 Quai Ernest Ansermet 
1211 Geneve 

Mr. Yvan Fontana 

Societe Suisse de Radiodiffusion 

et Television 
Giacomettistrasse 3 
CH 3000 Berne 15 

Ms. Gertrud Rihner 
Television Suisse Alemanique 

Fernsehstrasse 1-4 
8052 Zurich 

Mr. Rouad Ballat 


Place Omayad 



Mr. Pravit Maleenont 
Bangkok Entertainment Co. 
2259 New Petchburi Road 

Mr. Pramut Sutabutr 

Mass Communications Or. 

66 66V2 Pra Sumen Rd. Banglum 



Mr. Gilles Boutiron 

Television Togolaise 

BP 3286 



Mr. John T. Barsotti 

Trinidad & Tobago TV Co. Ltd. 

71 Avenue de la Liberie 



Mr. Faruk Bayham 


PO Box 98 

Kizilay, Ankara 


Mr. John Billett 

Dubai Radio & Color TV 

PO Box 1695 


United Arab Emirates 

Mr. Dmitri Morozov 
Comite d'Etat de I'URSS TV 
25 rue Piantnitskaia 
113326 Moscow 

Sr. Luis Guillermo Gonzalez 
Radio Caracas TV 
Barcenas A Rios 
Apartado Postal 2057 
Caracas 101 


Sr. Irwin Klein 
Venevision TV Channel 4 
Apartado 60193 
Caracas 1061 

Klaus Lackschewitz 


8 Bertramstrasse 

D6000 Frankfurt am Main 

West Germany 

Mrs. Gitta Erlacher 
ARD/Degeto Film GMBH 
Arnulfstrasse 42 
8000 Munchen 2 
West Germany 

Franz Everschor 
Degeto-Film GMBH 
8 Bertramstrasse 
6000 Frankfurt am Main 
West Germany 

Mr. Manfred Schutze 

Postfach 4040 
D6000 Mainz 1 
West Germany 

Mrs. Julia Ghandour Sal 
FRT/TV Novi Sad 
Kamenicki Put BB 
21000 Novi Sad 

Mr. Miroljub Filipovic 
JRT Beograd 
Post Office Box 78 
11000 Beograd 

Mr. Peter Povh Subert 


Mosa Pijadejeva 10 

61000 Ljubljana 


Ms. Mirjana Brankov 
JRT Tv Beograd 
10 rue Takovska 
11000 Beograd 

Mr. Meto Jovanovski 
JRT/TV Skopje 
Dolno Nerezi 
91000 Skopje 

Mr. N'sana Tshitenge 
Television Nationale du Zaire 
BP 7699 
Kinshasa 1 

Mr. Dixon Ninde 

Zambia Broadcasting Services 

Broadcasting House 

PO Box RW15 



Sra. Zaida Perez Ramirez 


Avenida Condado 657 


Puerto Rico 

PO Box W 
San Juan 
Puerto Rico 00936 

M. Philippe Guilhaume 
Telefrance International 
1980 Broadway 
New York NY 10023 

Mr. Arturo Chabua 
Television Interamericana SA 
4545 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 
Coral Gables FL 33146 

George Alexander 
WDR/Westdeutsche Rundfunk 
Los Angeles Office 
2985 Hutton Dr. 
Bell CA 90201 

Bjorck Film Corporation 
Carlton Terrace 
20650 Clarendon Street 
Woodland Hills CA 91367 
Attn: Lennart Bjorck 

Harald Vogel 

Janus Film und Fernsehen 

Postfach 70 04 28 

Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 24 

6 Frankfurt/M. 

West Germany 

Hans Bouad 
62 Bowman Avenue 
Portchester NY 10573 
(Dutch TV) 

Dainer Seik 
Polytel International 
810 Seventh Avenue 
New York NY 10019 



775. monthly 

212 781-7208 


International Prices 
For TV Films 

U.S. television exporters anticipate a total foreign gross of 
over $300,000 in 1980 reflecting a market characterized by con- 
tinuing growth. The total estimate includes sales of public 
affairs shows, cartoons, etc., as well as series and feature film 
product, but the major part of the total is for vidfilm product. 
One-hour series generally bring twice the half-hour price. 



CBC (French Net) 
CTV Network 

Price Range 

Half Hour 


$10,000- $15,000 

4,000- 7,000 

10,000- 14,000 







Costa Rica 

Dominican Republic . . 


El Salvador 






Netherlands Antilles . . 




Puerto Rico 

Trinidad & Tobago 









West Germany 


















































Luxembourg. . . . 








United Kingdom 




















Price Range 



$15,000- $25,000 
15,000 30,000 
90,000- 200,000 



























no sales 












East Germany 


















Saudi Arabia. 


no sales 




100- 150 

850- 1,000 

no sales 

3,000- 4,000 

1,200- 2,000 


800- 1,200 

560- 660 

2,000- 2,700 

150- 300 





Zimbabwe Rhodesia 

South Africa 


90- 100 no sales 

40- 50 no sales 

100- 150 300- 1,000 

official figures unavailable 
official figures unavailable 

50 100 



Hong Kong 


South Korea 



New Zealand 


Taiwan (Formosa) . . . 























60,000- 250,000 

'USSR: Dollar sales very rare and prices unsettled; still seek- 
ing barter deals. 

* "Australia: Telefilm sales in Australia are made under various 
arrangements: rights for the four capital cities (Sydney, 
Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide), rights for all Australia, 
original telecasts only originals with repeats guaranteed at 
50% of the price, multiple runs and various types of rerun 

One run in the four capital cities is — $7,500 per hour. The 
Australian Broadcasting Commission buys rights for all of 
Australia. The ABC pays at least 20% more than the above 
price. Those prices are for primetime. Miniseries and specials 
bring considerably more — up to $40,000 or even $50,000 per 
hour. Potential revenue for the commercial country stations 
(in markets outside the capital cities) is anywhere from $2,000 
to $2,500 per hour. 

** "Israel: Few American sales of features. 


T©E&L m ![L@« 


I recently spent a day working on a pre-screening committee 
for the CINE competition (CINE is the Council for Interna- 
tional Non-Theatrical Events), where two awards are 
presented: Golden Eagles go to professional films and Eagles 
to student and amateur films. Students may enter their films 
in either the professional or amateur category, but under 
CINE's current discriminatory bylaws student films cannot 
compete in both professional and student categories. 

The CINE competition has two cycles. The first has a deadline 
of February 1 and the second is on August 1. The purpose of 
CINE is to select and submit films from these winners that are 
most suitable to represent the United States film industry in 
international competition. As many as 200 films are sent 
abroad each year to over 100 film festivals by CINE, which 
handles all of the paperwork and shipping for the small fee of 
$35.00 per festival entry. (For additional information contact 
CINE at 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington DC 20036, 
(202) 785-1136.) CINE is a festival for entering festivals. 

The Screening Process 

Regional screening juries comprised of film and subject mat- 
ter specialists make a preliminary selection from all of the 
films submitted to CINE in any one category. Usually about 30 
juries and more than 300 jurors take part. I served on two 
juries this year and the experience was very similar to the one 
I had last year while serving on another jury. Once the 
preliminary jury finishes with a film, it is sent on to a second 

This year a new form was used. This form constitutes the real 
reason this article is being written. Filmmakers can benefit by 
knowing how their films are judged. Since CINE does not 
award competitive prizes, films only compete against them- 
selves. CINE's aim is to select the best Americans films to 
represent our industry. 

evaluated by the jury and for the most part everyone seemed 
to agree on focus, color, lighting, sound quality and so on. 
The category of "creativity" caused some problems for me as 
did "story presentation" and "treatment of substance", but 
for the most part these areas seem to be quite subjective. 
Well-shot films with excellent sound and editing are not 
necessarily good films. The "good" part from a CINE judging 
panel's point of view seems wrapped up in these three subjec- 
tive areas. 

The second part of the evaluation form asked a series of ques- 
tions. Three answers were permitted: "Yes", "No" and 
"Maybe". The questions asked were: do you feel this film is of 
Festival quality; is the film in any way discriminatory, offen- 
sive; does this film belong in another category; do you believe 
this film is generally accurate; does the film achieve its 
stipulated purpose? These questions are interesting in that 
they provide insight into the CINE judging process. The first 
question about "Festival quality" is key. What is meant by 
"Festival quality"? This subjective question prompts the 
judge to consider his or her experience with foreign festivals 
and based on that experience decide if the film screened has 
a chance. 

This then is the bottom line: CINE wants the films it enters 
into festivals to be shown and/or win prizes. CINE is in the 
business of selecting award winners to win more awards. It is 
this step in the judging process that is key. The questions 
about "purpose" or "accuracy" provide jurors excuses to 
knock films out. Yet purposeful, accurate films are capable of 
being real losers. As a judge dealing with subjective cate- 
gories, one's best defense might be to say, "When I see a 
good film, I know it is a good film". The value of the CINE 
form is that it forces the jury members to look at all films in 
much the same way. The film screened first thing in the morn- 
ing seems to have an equal shot with the film screened mid- 
morning or after lunch. 

The Form 

Each juror is required to fill out and sign a form for every film 
screened. Our committees screened all films in their entirety. 
The form has two major sections. In section one the jurors are 
asked to rate each film on a one to ten scale in the following 
areas: visual quality, creativity, sound track, treatment of 
substance, story presentation and editing. Each of these 
areas are pretty straightforward. CINE did not provide our jury 
with a glossary or examples for each of these terms. It should 
be noted that the projection facilities used in Los Angeles for 
film (16mm and 35mm) and tape (% inch) in both of my jury ex- 
periences were first class professional facilities. From one 
film to the next, visual quality and sound could be objectively 

The final section of the form asks the jury member to say why 
s/he did not select a film. This section is useful in that it again 
causes a juror to deal directly with the film. I must admit that 
in a few cases I simply wrote, "This is a terrible film" or "This 
film is poorly done, see above" but for the most part I tried to 
be as specific as possible. 

As one of CINE's board members said to me in an interview, 
CINE " . . . provides a passport to a film. It is not a festival, but 
a screening process." I think that is an apt description. A 
Golden Eagle means that a few juries consisting of less than 
30 individuals liked your film more than other films or felt that 
it should receive a passport. This writer feels that the more 
that is known about film festivals the better independent film- 
makers are able to decide if they want to submit their film. 






In the mid seventies Eric Mitchell began acting in 
super-8 and then 16 mm narrative features made by 
young filmmakers loosely associated with the 
downtown music and art scene sometimes called 
"Punk" or "new wave". Mitchell was, as he says, more 
interested in his own ideas, and in 1977 made his own 
super-8 film KIDNAPPED (super-8 color, transferred to 
video cassette, 60 minutes). 

In his words, it's "A nostalgia item", six young artists in 
an East Village tenement playing at being 60's style 
underground film stars in the guise of '70's left wing 
terrorists. A spoof on a spoof, but more than a parody, a 
record of the late 70's with all its '60's reference 

Only five months later Mitchell finished his second film 
titled RED ITALY, shot entirely in New York, pretending 
to be Italy. There is a traditional Italian filmic conflict 
through the class-crossed, ill-fated love of the pious 
socialist (Eric Mitchell) for a glamorous American 
starlet, (Jennifer Miro) the victim of capitalist 

degenerates. As Mitchell says, it's "a little bit of 
rhetoric and a lot of posing", but the effect of "faking" 
Italy is convincing. 

Mitchell's latest film, UNDERGROUND U.S.A., (16mm, 
color 85 min.) is more than just a lavish update of KID- 
NAPPED. It combines all the 60's references of KID- 
NAPPED with the story of a washed up Underground 
film star who has no existence without a starring role. It 
is the perfect representation of late '70's America in an 
existential crisis. 

In all three of his films Mitchell acts as well as directs. 
In these roles he plays a sometimes intrusive observer. 
Not always a passive watcher, he is often the catalyst 
for the film's action, or as he says, he plays "the reason 
the film gets made." In this way he actually directs the 
film while in front of the camera, in character. 

In order to show his new films, Mitchell joined with 
others in his lower Manhattan community of artists 
musicians and filmmakers to form The New Cinema. 


They opened their own theater, transferred the flimsy 
super-8 prints to videotape and projected them with an 
Advent. As his audience grew he upgraded his format 
from super-8 to 16mm with unusual leaps in production 

This year UNDERGROUND U.S.A. opened at the St. 
Marks Cinema on Second Ave. It ran for five months as 
the midnight show, and unlike many independent nar- 

rative features it made and continues to make money. 

The following interview was conducted in Eric 
Mitchell's East Village Flat. Unlike the run-down apart- 
ments in KIDNAPPED, Mitchell's place is neat and 
business-like. Everything in the small room pertains to 
film. Story-board drawings tracing the story of the John 
Kennedy Assasination, complete with numerous news 
photos of Lee Harvey Oswald cover the walls. 

L.T.: Who are you and who do you know anyway? 

E.M.: That's the line from my movie. 

B.J.: It sounds like a question. 

E.M.: My name is Eric Mitchell and I make movies, and my 
friends do other things. 

B.J.: And your friends are in your movies? 

E.M.: It happens that I know actors who want to be in my 
movies. At first I acted in movies, then I made movies and I 
drew from the people who I had come to know, but I don't 
have a stable or anything like that, although there are repeats. 

B.J.: Do you like that situation where you use the same 

E.M.: From an artistic point of view I think it's very good, this 
sort of reference, where in one movie an actor has a starring 
part and in the next only a bit part. It's more democratic than 
the star system. But that might change because of commer- 
cial contingencies. If I want to have bigger budgets I might 
have to spice it up with some new actors. Anyway the movies 
are changing. My previous movies have only drawn on the 
downtown rock music/art scene. I may have to change that in 
the next movie. Like a total change of cast and milieu. 

B.J.: So let's talk about your first film, Kidnapped. Was that 
the most spontaneous of your films? Did you cast it less 

E.M.: No, Kidnapped was kind of strange because it started 
out to be one idea and turned out to be something entirely dif- 

It happened around the time of the Baader-Meinhoff kidnap- 
ping. And the people I knew were talking about it a lot and 
playing up to these media characters. Also I had just seen 
Warhol's Vinyl, which was made in 1964. I decided to make a 
film about the punk scene that was happening now but in the 
style of the 60's underground movie. 

Originally, the story was supposed to be what happens if the 
Baader-Meinhoff gang decided to make a film while they're 
between actions. Actually the Baader-Meinhoff did make a 
videotape of their capture for the press. I was playing on this 
real occurrence. 

Out of that, characters were drawn. Anya Phillips I saw as sort 
of the leader, but ultimately it turned out to be about six 
people in an East Village apartment and what their relation- 
ships could be. Then there is the kidnapping but it's not really 
the point of the movie. 

I wanted to use all the conventions of underground films. I 
still believe that the underground movement was the only 
original independent narrative movement that came out of 
America. In a sense it was a movement that was consciously 
against the Hollywood model. So they used the static camera, 
no rehearsing, the script seen in the shot, the whole idea of 
bringing everything together — no editing. 

B.J.: So that's what you did. 

E.M.: We started shooting, we ended shooting and that was 
the movie, right! I gave the scripts out when people came in 
the door, and there was the camera, and everyone took some 
sort of drugs. Some people took ups and some people took 

It took about six hours. We edited some scenes in the camera, 
but finally it's just rolls of Super-8 film. Then we transferred it 
to videocassette. 

Mostly, I was interested in the 60's conventions. It was a 
nostalgia item. 

B.J.: It became more theatrically sophisticated as it went on, 
as people became less self-conscious. 

E.M.: What was more interesting was what happened when 
people didn't have any dialogue. Sometimes how they smoke 
a cigarette is more interesting than a long monologue going 
on at the same time. In this way I wanted to record the way my 
friends were at the time, because I thought they represented 
something important at that moment. 

L.T.: Do you think the thing they represented, especially in 
terms of a weird kind of sexuality, or weird asexuality, was Or 
is applicable to these times in general? 

E.M.: I think it still works now but then there was all this 
about the difference between parody and posing, or between 
being what you want to be and playing up to something that 
exists in the press. At that time people were less self- 
conscious than they are now. I'm talking about a very specific 
group around the music and art scene. 

L.T.: I think it's interesting that you say these attitudes per- 
tain only to this one little group, because when I saw Kidnap- 
ped, I immediately thought of Underground U.S.A. 

E.M.: They are basically the same movie. 

L.T.: But you chose to call the later movie Underground U.S.A. 
Did you really mean U.S.A.? 

E.M.: Kidnapped is a purer movie. In that way I like it better. It 
is the original idea. It captures perfectly that back-to-the-60's 
thing the way that I wanted to. 

You set the rules and whatever happens cannot be bad 
because you say it has to be good. It was my first movie and I 
played it safe. I could not fail, right? 

Underground U.S.A. was a final statement on something I saw. 
Maybe that's why I called it Underground U.S.A., because it 
was about to become something else other than underground. 

B.J.: There is something else in your movies that is outside 
the underground conventions — that you are director and 
star. In Kidnapped you really direct the action in front of the 
camera while still in your character. In many ways it's the 
same in Red Italy and Underground U.S.A. 


E.M.: In Kidnapped it had a lot to do with the Baader-Meinhoff 
thing we were playing up to. Everybody was ordering everyone 
else around. We took turns. And I never thought of myself as 
the star of the movie. I always thought Anya Phillips was the 
lead and in Red Italy, Jennifer Miro and in Underground U.S.A., 
Patti Astor was the focus. I always thought of myself as the 
catalyst — why the movie was being made in a sense. 

B.J.: What are the essential differences between Kidnapped 
and Underground U.S.A.? 

E.M.: Underground U.S.A. is a vastly more stylish film. I was 
interested in the actors' relation to the camera and how it af- 
fects their performances. 

B.J.: I thought the most interesting thing about Underground 
U.S.A. was an elusive, shifting point of view. 

E.M.: That also has to do with the camera. In conventional 
Hollywood movies, point of view is used to help you identify 
with one character or another. In Underground, it was more 
like we choreographed the camera and the rest of the scene 
followed from there. It's difficult to talk about point of view in 
my movie. 

B.J.: As the director of these events and as an actor in your 
own, films would you say you always feel a part of the action? 
Do you fit into the milieu you've created? 

E.M.: I know what you mean, but I was in the film in the 
character of an intruder into these people's lives. So every 
time I'm in the shot I just sort of exist there, which is how I 
felt someone would come into someone else's life. Just watch 
what was going on. 

B.J.: Was that sense portrayed in the visual style of the film 
Underground U.S.A. ? 

E.M.: There were different things that I was trying to do, like 
play with the idea of the static camera which is a moving 
camera, to maintain a very even medium-shot attitude and 
always stay a little bit removed from the characters and watch 
with the camera. 

B.J.: People were posing, even if they were moving. 

E.M.: When we shot the movie we did a lot of orchestration 
with the camera. If the camera moved the actors, the actors 
moved with it. The acting was done as if in a play. Each se- 
quence was rehearsed, then shot. There was no cinematic 
tailoring of the dialogue. 

I would like to say one thing about Underground U.S.A. I tried 
to make the movie as a final statement about something I saw 
and experienced, and I feel if there is any sort of cultural 
background to New York it's the underground music and art 
scene. People in that scene of no more than, say, a thousand 



people don't often get recognition in a wider sense, but these 
ideas are still ripped off and eventually become the 
mainstream. I just wanted to keep that from happening in 
some way. I was interested in the story of what happens to an 
underground star when she's no longer in the movies — 
which is the story of Underground U.S.A. — but really, its 
about something I saw, something experienced. 

L.T.: I'd like to ask you about the women in your films. 
Women play an important part in all three of your films, and 
yet the different characters all seem to be the same woman. 
What do you think about that? 

E.M.: What are they like? 

L.T.: I'm asking you. 

E.M.: Yeah, yeah — I know, kind of passive. 

L.T.: A type of woman who is passive, reactive, and yet has 
this underside of terror and hostility. 

E.M.: Yeah. 

L.T.: It's a stereotypical portrayal — like a Judy Garland type. 

E.M.: I guess I'm attracted to portraying this kind of woman. I 
don't know why. They are very cinematic in a way. It's more 
like a celluloid personality. I know what you mean though. I've 
never had a woman who was totally in control of the events in 

her life. They're usually manipulated by men. Especially the 
Jennifer Miro character (Red Italy) and the Patti Astor 
character (Underground U.S.A.). They are victims of 
something. Either their husband, or their professional situa- 

L.T.: Like Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens. 

B.J.: I'd like to talk to you about your ideas on acting. In 
Underground U.S.A. there was a lot of physical acting. But the 
speaking, or dialogue, was always flat in comparison. They 
were all very well defined physically but the dialogue seemed 
very separate. 

E.M.: Yeah, I like that. I wanted it flat like a cartoon. You 
know, with the bubbles that appear with the words they are to 
speak. In a Hollywood movie the emotional impact that you 
receive is based on the acting. 

You feel an emotion and then you regret that emotion because 
you've been conned by that film. You feel a tear on your 
cheek, then the image flickers by and then you have to repress 
it and wait for the next emotion you're supposed to feel. I 
wanted to let the viewer decide about emotions, not the film. I 
like acting that's less emotive. 

B.J.: Then what are you left with? In a Hollywood film you 
have the story and the characterization, the acting of the 




E.M.: In Underground U.S.A. the story is assumed. You're sup- 
posed to know from when she (Patti Astor) first enters what 
the story is about. And the dialogue is to be delivered very flat- 
ly — like you read a book. 

B.J.: That's what I mean. What are you left with in the movie? 

E.M.: You have one more version of the same story. That's 
what movies are all about. One thing about the emotions is 
that I'm not quite yet sure how to handle it. If someone were 
to go totally emotional, I would freak out. But I still don't 
believe that that would be great acting. I don't want that. In my 
next film I want to experiment with the close-up, but totally in 
control. Have you ever seen Bresson movies? They are flat. 
They tell you things but in a different way. 

B.J.: Then is there information relayed? 

E.M.: Well, there is a lot of information in the way the 
dialogue is delivered and in what is in the dialogue, especially 
in the normality of it. The essential dialogue is very simply 
dialogue. If we're making a movie right now we should make it 
about the way they talk right now. Americans are not very ar- 
ticulate. Right? They are a very simple people. Right? 

L.T.: (laughs) 

E.M.: You know what I mean. The American language is 
shrinking in a sense. When you hear people talk they use 500 
words all the time. But if you talk about identifying with the 
actors in my movies, you have to identify with what's being 
said, not how it's being said. 

L.T.: That's a very Minimal sensibility as opposed to a kind of 
Romantic. . . . 

E.M.: Yeah, but I think it's kind of Romantic in the images and 
the general situation. I felt a certain romanticism toward the 
movie. A romanticism of lifestyle. Ultimately that's what the 
movie is all about. Being in New York and the artist/music 
milieu was romanticized. 

B.J.: Then do you think people are envious or empathize with 
these romanticized characters? Will people eventually want to 
be like them? Do people want to be them? 

E.M.: Empathize?. . .No. I always wonder if people want to 
see on the screen something that is them or something else. 
It's a thin line. If you show people to themselves, they don't 
usually like it. If you show them something else, they don't 
understand it. You're always playing a thin line. 

Underground U.S.A. has this particular problem: that it can 
easily be hard to identify with it, but on the other hand people 
can identify with it and find themselves in there and hate how 
I treated them. "I made them so shallow", "I made them so 
uninteresting" — you know? A lot of the criticism was like 
that. But I thought... If you find yourself in there and you 
don't like what you find, then I've succeeded. That's fine, 
right? Right! And if they can't identify with it then that's 
because the subject matter was too limited. Right. But in my 
next film, I'm going to shift everything around. People will 
think I'm going to make the same movie but I'm going to shift 
to a more normal set of references. 

The interesting thing about these movies that we make is that 
they are still not such big projects, that we can still do what 
we want and reach who we want. In Hollywood movies it's all 
about reaching the larger audience. Elements in the movie 
must be identified by 70 million people. And I think that in 
terms of their appeal, the fact that my movies are limited to a 
certain point of view, a certain style, is their strength, not their 

L.T.: Can you say more about your next film? 

E.M.: I don't want to say too much specifically because, you 
know, I don't want to have to eat my words. But in my next 
movie I want to try to deal with the specific anxiety people 
have right now about the future. There's a sense of doom in 
people's lives. I want to deal with it in a positive way. To try to 
break down exactly what's happening and how it affects you. 
You know, if you go to a store one day and buy a bun for 15$ 
and the next day it's 20<t — just like that in two days. That 
tells it all. Then after the situation is set out in the introduc- 
tion to the movie, I'd like to find a way to break it, to find a 

B.J.: You want to find a solution? 

E.M.: I want to deal with a character that's trying to find a 
solution. You know, nobody has relationships anymore. It's 
too frightening to invest in the future. I want to add a little 
adventure in the American film theme. I want the character to 
break — to go somewhere, to be somebody else — to change 
his life. That's what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about 
is very pared down. Essential items. 


PTVs CIA Show 


One of this season's most popular public television pro- 
grams was Free to Choose, written by and starring con- 
troversial economist Milton Friedman, among whose 
previous activities was advising the Pinochet govern- 
ment in Chile. The show examines almost every facet of 
the free enterprise system except the source of the 
funding for Milton Friedman's series debut on public 
TV. As far as the average viewer of Free to Choose 
could tell from the credits, the money was provided 
mainly by foundations rather than corporations; once 
again, it seemed public television had provided an in- 
dependent forum for controversial programs. 

But did it? If a program on the energy crisis were fund- 
ed by the Mobil Oil Corporation or the Exxon Corpora- 
tion, the conflict of interest would be obvious, but the 
ethical problems raised by foundation sponsorship of 
public television are less clear-cut. The general public 
regards foundations, for the most part, as charitable 
organizations functioning on behalf of some ill-defined 
public interest, and the foundation world has worked 
hard to foster this image. 

But it is precisely this benign public view of founda- 
tions that has made them increasingly attractive 
"neutral" sponsors for controversial public television 
shows. Corporations and institutions whose images are 
tarnished now seek such "neutral" intermediaries to 
convey their views. 

The Smith Richardson Foundation of Greensboro, 
North Carolina, is one such ideological middleman. 
This non-profit foundation, which provided seed money 
(a small but crucial sum) for Free to Choose as well as 
for other programs of similar conservative hue, has had 
close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and the 
Defense Department for many years. Its funding of pro- 
grams dealing with foreign policy or domestic spending 
raises serious questions about what should constitute 
a conflict of interest. Of equal importance is the 
viewers' right to know the ideological leanings of the 
underwriters of such programs so that they can better 
assess their objectivity. 

Raising money for public programs is as uncertain as 
panning for gold. Advertising isn't permitted on the 
system, which is partially funded by the Government. 
Producers of controversial programs have a particularly 
difficult task because underwriters are reluctant to sup- 
port them. 

One reliable and lucrative source of funds, however, 
has been the Smith Richardson Foundation. With 
assets of approximately $60 million, the foundation 
has, since 1975, given about $250,000 for public affairs 
programs on noncommercial TV: some $25,000 for 
Friedman's Free to Choose (the program's largest 
preproduction grant); about $105,000 for In Search of 
the Real America, which examined topics that included 
the C.I.A., defense and foreign policy; $50,000 to WETA, 

The following article is a reprint from the July 19-26, 1980 
issue of the Nation. Reprints are available from The Nation, 72 
Fifth Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10011. 

Washington's public broadcasting station, for a planned 
series, currently in limbo, on American foreign policy, 
and $40,000 for The American Gift, a series resembling 
Free to Choose, which was shelved because KERA, the 
Dallas public station, lacked sufficient funds. In nearly 
every case, Smith Richardson provided the most dif- 
ficult money for producers to raise — seed money for 
preproduction expenses. 

In addition, in 1977 and 1979, the foundation gave a 
total of $47,500 in preproduction grants to WGBH, 
Boston's public station, for a program on the C.I. A. The 
program grew out of research undertaken for an 
episode of In Search of the Real America, entitled Two 
Cheers for the C.I. A. 

The new program on the C.I. A., Night Watch at Langley, 
supported in part by the Smith Richardson Foundation, 
is being prepared according to the program's promo- 
tional brochure while "Congress is considering what 
sort of limitations ought to be imposed on the C.I. A." A 
fund-raising letter reveals the producers' approach: 
"Rather than get involved in all the complexities of the 
past, we thought it better to look ahead and examine 
what role the C.I. A. might play when confronted with a 
crisis in the future." 

Drafts of the story and teleplays are being reviewed by 
"consultants," according to the promotion brochure, 
who include William Colby, former director of the C.I. A.; 
Samuel Helpern, former C.I. A. executive assistant to 
the deputy director for plans; John Maury, former C.I. A. 
chief of Soviet operations, legislative counsel for Con- 
gressional relations and Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, and Cord Meyer, former chief of the C.I. A. 
covert action staff, chief of the London station and 
assistant to the deputy director. 

Despite the fact that Smith Richardson Foundation 
money and other grants have not been enough to pro- 
duce the program as yet, the initial biases of the project 
and of a key underwriter indicate some of the problems 
raised by Smith Richardson as a donor of such money 
for public TV programs. The more one knows about the 
foundation the more disturbing these problems 

In 1935, the Smith Richardson Foundation was incor- 
porated in North Carolina under the name of the 
Richardson Foundation. It was established by the late 
H. Smith Richardson, the son of the founder of the Vick 
Chemical Company. The company's name was changed 
to Richardson-Merrell Inc. in 1960 and the foundation, 
which is independent of the company, changed its 
name to the Smith Richardson Foundation in 1968. 
The foundation has the same Greensboro address as 
the center, and both are run by the same people: R. 
Randolph Richardson Jr., president and trustee of the 
foundation, is on the board of trustees of the center, 


CIA Show 

and his brother, H. Smith Richardson Jr., chairman of 
the foundation and trustee, is also chairman of the 
board of trustees of the center. In other words, the 
foundation and the center are linked historically, finan- 
cially, geographically and administratively. 

Although the center has provided leadership training 
courses for more than 100 organizations, it has had a 
special relationship with the C.I. A. and the Defense 
Department since its founding. For instance, the C.I. A. 
and the Army sent staff to the very first training pro- 
grams offered by the center. In 1978, more than thirty- 
five high-ranking officers and some thirty-five C.I.A. 
members took part in center activities, and in the last 
few years, the center has transferred a leadership 
development course to the C.I.A., which the Agency 
uses on an in-house basis. 

Still another connection between the defense 
establishment and the center is a multi-year contract 
with the Office of Naval Research for development of a 
management-simulation model. The contract, totaling 
about $130,000, is one of the largest single contracts 
awarded the center. In 1978, the C.I.A. and the Defense 
Department paid the center a total of about $115,000, 
which, excluding the contributions of the Smith 
Richardson Foundation, was almost 20 percent of the 
center's total income. 

Finally, the Smith Richardson Foundation itself has 
other ties to the defense and intelligence establish- 
ment: several top-level officials, at present advisers or 
employees of the C.I.A. and the Defense Department, 
are among the consultants who review grant applica- 
tions for the foundation. 

When questioned about its connection to the founda- 
tion and the foundation's support of public television 
programs that advocate higher defense appropriations, 
a Defense Department spokesman said that the depart- 
ment "does not consider the underwriting of PBS pro- 
gramming by the Smith Richardson Foundation as a 
conflict of interest even though programs underwritten 
by the foundation may have been defense-oriented." A 
spokesman for the C.I.A. refused comment beyond 
denying that the Agency is funding any programs on 
public television, adding that since 1977 internal regula- 
tions prevent it from providing "help of any kind to any 
media directed at the American public." 

But at least one person involved with television pro- 
grams supported by the Smith Richardson Foundation 
has been associated with C.I.A. media activities in the 

Richard M. Scaife, chairman of the Sarah Scaife Foun- 
dation and trustee of the Scaife Family Charitable 
Trusts, was listed as the owner of record of Forum 
World Features, a news service, which a 1975 article in 
The Washington Post identified as being C.I. A. -funded. 
The Scaife group of foundations has given money to 
many of the same programs supported by the Smith 
Richardson Foundation: the Scaife Family Charitable 
Trusts made grants of about $225,000 for In Search of 
the Real America and $100,000 for Night Watch at 
Langley; the Sarah Scaife Foundation, administered by 


the same person, Richard Larry, gave $500,000, the 
largest grant, for Free to Choose. 

The Public Broadcasting Service does, of course, have 
guidelines about funding for its programs. For most of 
its information about underwriters, PBS relies on the in- 
dividual producers. Corporations usually receive far 
closer scrutiny than general-purpose foundations like 
Smith Richardson, and it appears that PBS's main con- 
cern is that a particular commercial product or firm not 
be promoted: PBS, for instance, disallowed a $1,000 
grant from the Capezio foundation for a dance program 
because the program might have been construed as a 
promotion for Capezio dance products. More recently, 
PBS expressed concern about labor union support for 
Made in U.S.A.., a proposed series on the history of the 
labor movement in America, and asked that initial funds 
from unions be supplemented by assistance from other 

When informed about the Smith Richardson Founda- 
tion's longstanding ties with the Defense Department 
and the Center for Creative Leadership's links to the 
C.I.A., Barry Chase, director of current affairs program- 
ming for PBS and, from 1976 to 1978, associate general 
counsel responsible for approving underwriters, com- 
mented, "It strikes me as something not important 
enough to matter." (Neither PBS nor executive pro- 
ducer of Night Watch Austin Hoyt knew about the 
C.I. A. -Defense-Smith Richardson connections until in- 
terviewed for this article.) 

Chase also pointed out that the foundation contributed 
less than 50 percent of the total costs of In Search of 
the Real America and Free to Choose and the C.I.A. 
and the Defense Department provided only a "small 
percentage" of the center's total funding. When asked 
about Night Watch at Langley, however, Chase said 
that Smith Richardson support "makes me a little more 
uncomfortable but I still find it acceptable." 

Where, then, does Chase draw the line? On the one 
hand, he is adamant that the subject matter and the ap- 
proach to programs be initiated by producers and not 
by foundations. Yet in 1977, Auston Hoyt wrote the 
following letter to Michael Rice, then president of 
WGBH: "The Smith Richardson Foundation has granted 
WGBH $7,500 to develop a proposal on the role of in- 
telligence (of the spook variety) in America." In this 
case at least, the foundation would seem to have initi- 
ated the program and decided upon its direction. When 
he was asked to respond to this charge, Hoyt offered a 
different sequence: "The idea came from WGBH. Smith 
Richardson gave WGBH a small grant so we could 
develop a fund-raising proposal. This is far different 
from saying that Smith Richardson generated either the 
idea or the proposal." Leslie Lenkowsky, director of 
research and spokesman for the Smith Richardson 
Foundation, added, "We never tell producers what to 

Conflict-of-interest standards are clearly violated when 
a producer sends a script to an underwriter. The mere 
act of sending a script to a funder "is journalistic in- 
terference," Chase emphasized. "It's an improper thing 

CIA Show 

for a producer to. do." He considers such an opportuni- 
ty for editorial control "a violation of our most sacred 
principle, and the program ought never to be seen on 

Yet in a letter of January 5, 1979, Hoyt wrote to 
Lenkowsky about Night Watch: "Enclosed is . . . the 
first draft of Ray Cline's story...." And on July 13, 
Hoyt wrote again: Enclosed are the "first draft of 
episode one of our CIA drama" and "a treatment of 
episode two." Asked if this was improper, Hoyt ex- 
plained that sending scripts was part of a "periodic 
report to underwriters to show what their money has 
gone for" and "there was no interference from any of 
the underwriters." Lenkowsky's comment was: "As 
underwriters we have every right to see the script. We 
did not ask for changes." 

The Smith Richardson Foundation denies that it has 
done anything improper. Asserting that "we fund good, 
tough shows," Lenkowsky stressed that "we are not do- 
ing anything for the Defense Department or the C.I. A. 
within the foundation." Adding that it is an "over- 
simplification" to characterize the foundation as 
pro-C.I.A., he claimed that the foundation has "ab- 
solutely no control over the Center for Creative Leader- 
ship," and he emphasized that the center's income 
from the Defense Department and the C.I. A. is "only a 
small part of its annual budget." Nevertheless, ques- 
tions remain since the Center for Creative Leadership, 

the foundation affiliate, received substantial funds from 
the C.I.A. and the Defense Department at the same time 
that the Smith Richardson Foundation was boosting 
these government agencies through programs on PBS. 
Obviously, PBS cannot investigate every underwriter in 
detail. But it can certainly scrutinize foundations as 
closely as it does corporations and labor unions. The 
issue is not whether conservative or liberal foundations 
are funding public TV programs. The issue is accoun- 
tability. I am not suggesting that certain views that 
many may find obnoxious should not receive a public 
hearing (an anti-C.I.A. show, On Company Business, 
has been aired on PBS) — only that hidden sponsorship 
of controversial shows on public policy issues should 
be avoided by producers of public television programs. 
Viewers should, for instance, be as aware of the under- 
writers for John Kenneth Galbraith's The Age of Uncer- 
tainty (the Ford Foundation among others) as for Milton 
Friedman's Free to Choose. But a simple listing of 
these underwriters in the credits for the show is, of 
course, insufficient without accompanying information 
about who they are and what they represent. In view of 
the difficulty of communicating such information to 
people who are only watching television, perhaps the 
solution is the one suggested in A Public Trust, the re- 
cent report of the Carnegie Commission on public 
broadcasting: underwriters should give money for 
general support rather than for specific programs. 

Medio Clips 

This new column will be an ongoing part of our informa- 
tion resource center activity. Any members with perti- 
nent information are encouraged to make submissions. 
Contact John T. Rice at AIVF. 

CPB/CSG Review Hearings 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is holding review 
hearings on the proposed status of Community Service 
Grants. CSG's provide 60% (and going up!) of the total federal 
appropriation to public television and are given to stations 
with no strings attached. For monies to be mandated for local 
programming and acquisition, these CSG's will need to be re- 
evaluated and perhaps "dedicated" to independent produc- 
tion; in other words, more money for programming, and the 
beginning of a lid on "station"-related overhead expenses. 

Independents interested in testifying call Mattie Hardy at 
CPB. The dates are: 1) November 6, 1980/Minneapolis-St. Paul; 
2) November 11, 1980/New York City; 3) December 2, 1980/Salt 
Lake City; 4) December 11, 1980, Nashville; 5) January 16, 
1981/Los Angeles; 6) January 20, 1981/San Diego. For more 
info on AlVF's perspective contact John T. Rice. 

FCC/ Lower Power Stations 

Want to start a grassroots broadcasting station for $55,000? 
With the decision by the FCC to open up the low-power chan- 
nel space, independents have an opportunity to do just that. 
The new service would limit VHF stations (2-13) to a maximum 
10 watts, and UHF stations (channels 14-83) to a maximum 
1,000 watts (range 12 to 15 miles). These stations can 
originate an unlimited amount of community programming 
and have the option to offer subscription TV. The networks are 
restricted from entering the market but there are very few 
other FCC restrictions. Contact the FCC for their report, A 
Micro-TV Service in the United States, and the Consumer 
Assistance office for further info at (202) 632-7260. 

NY/Metro Cable Groups Meet 

Users of cable access (producers, facilities, media centers) 
have been meeting in New York under the auspices of the Tri- 
State Planning Commission. This "Telecommunications Ad- 
visory Committee" has received an NTIA grant to survey the 
available facilities, programming and needs of these cable 
groups. A study will be published as an appendix to the 
regional planning study, Project Metrolink, and will begin to 
form a basis for enhancing cable facilities and distribution 
coordination. Positive ideas put forth so far include: regional 
access mobile vans with an ability to go "live", Cable 
festivals, satellite networking between cable systems and/or 
libraries, exhibition centers. Contact Bill Rushton for informa- 
tion at (212)938-3321. 

AIVF Appointed to TAC 

AlVF's President Jane Morrison was recently appointed to the 
PBS Satellite Transponder Allocation Committee. This body 
makes policy decisions that affect the nature of future access 
to PTV satellite transponder time (3 on line, 4th transponder 
due Jan. 1, 1981). With PTV intending to sell part of the excess 
time in a profit-making deal with Western Union, indepen- 
dents might find themselves losing a potentially significant 
distribution mechanism. We are suggesting support systems 
to help facilitate this service which should include reasonable 
rate structures, billing procedures and promotional efforts. 

We believe the satellite system, essentially a PBS service for 
stations, should "afford an added measure of access assis- 
tance to small independent producers who are seeking to 


solicit financial backing for a planned program or... to 
disseminate programs directly to the public" (Senate Report 
on PTV Financing Act of 1978.) Contact John Rice at AIVF for 
more info. 

Next PTV Funding Bill Update 

The next PTV financing act is now beginning its long 
legislative process. AIVF and other citizens' advocacy groups 
have already briefed the National Telecommunications Infor- 
mation Agency (NTIA) concerning maintaining the progressive 
language of the PTV Financing Act of 1978. Problems in im- 
plementing the "substantial amount for independents" has 
prompted us to ask for more specific legislative mandates. 

We should expect a tough fight from public television. CPB/ 
Congressional Subcommittee Oversight hearings are due 
sometime in November '80. The next Funding Bill sessions 
will probably not begin till June '81. For more info call Carolyn 
Sachs for the House Subcommittee on Communications at 
(202)225-3651. Independents interested in coordinating 
testimony call John Rice at AIVF. 

New Technologies for Independents 

Three AIVF presentations in December, and one in January, 
will explore new techniques in producing and distributing 
films and video. These multi-media demonstrations will focus 
on the inherent creative potential of these new systems, and 
the utilization of these technologies by Independent pro- 
ducers. On Dec. 4th, 1980 the subject is Low-Power: The Way 
to Independent Television?, featuring F.C.C. hearing 
videotapes. Producing for Video-disc, with Patrick McEntee, 
Director of Interactive Programming, Sony Corp., will be on 
Dec. 11th. On Dec. 18th, Kim Spencer of Public Interest Video 
Network will discuss Independent Distribution Via Satellite. 
3-D TV with Ted Conant of the DOTS System is tentatively 
scheduled for Jan. 5th, 1980. All presentations begin at 8:00 
p.m. and are free for AIVF members, $4.50 for non-members. 
For more information contact John T. Rice at (212) 473-3400. 

Access II: Handbook for Satellite Distribution 

The National Endowment for the Arts has recently completed 
an Independent Producers' Handbook of Satellite Com- 
munications called Access II. This handbook is a practical 
guide for independent producers interested in distributing to 
PTV, cable and commercial television and radio systems. It in- 
cludes descriptions of current satellite systems and networks, 
contact person information and background history of in- 
dependents' usage to date. This handbook is a must for any 
independent involved in self-distribution. 

Authors: Joseph D. Baken and David Chandler. NEA Publica- 
tion Coordinator: Marion Dix. Copies are $3.00. For more infor- 
mation contact John T. Rice at AIVF. 

Please send me 


an NEA publication, by Joseph D. Baken and David 

would like 

copies. At $3.00 per copy I have 

enclosed a check or money order for $_ 
My address is 

Make check or money order payable to: 

625 Broadway, New York NY 10012 

Statement by Kathleen Nolan 

(On September 18, 1980, CPB Board member and past Screen 
Actors Guild President Kathy Nolan made an emotional 
presentation which criticized a "union-busting" seminar 
NAEB had planned for participants at its annual conference. 
The seminar, entitled Labor Relations in Public Broadcasting 
Stations, has since been eliminated from the program. Printed 
below is the transcript of Ms. Nolan's statement, depicting 
public broadcasting's PR woes.) 

As many of you know, there has been a long history of conflict 
between labor unions and working people and the manage- 
ment of public broadcasting stations. We all know as well how 
many people in our creative society have been disappointed at 
public broadcasting's performance in terms of "openness" 
and participation in the decision-making process of our 

What I hold here in my hand is an example of the perception 
of public broadcasting's views on labor unions, a perception 
which causes working men and women in the creative fields 
to be skeptical if not downright disgusted about the mission 
of public broadcasting. 

This is an NAEB Public Telecommunications Institute 
registration form for a labor relations seminar to be held this 
coming Sept. 30, here in Washington. And I use the word 
"seminar" loosely since the term implies balance and equity 
in discussion of any issue. It reads, and I quote from the 
publication the purpose of this so-called seminar: 

"Presentations will include focus on the need for 
specific commitments by management to direct dealing 
with employees as individuals and in groups and on 
two-way participation in policy-making problem solving 
as an alternative to unionism." 

In other words, this seminar is purely and simply a "union 
busting" meeting, and nowhere in this printed matter is there 
one word about the advantages of labor organization 

Let me continue. It says: 

"Time will be set aside for discussion of individual 
situations and circumstances as they occur at stations, 
as will the implications of unionism as the stations con- 
sider moving into "national productions." 

"Finally," it continues, "the early warning signs of union 
organization efforts will be enumerated." 

Perhaps our President, who has a history in the arbitration 
field, may take another view, but my dear friends and col- 
leagues, I do not see how anyone could take this seminar, 
conducted by one of our national organizations, as anything 
but an anti-unionism effort on the part of one of our con- 

All I really want to say is that for a publicly-funded institution 
to openly and proudly announce to the world that it will spend 
public money to fight union organization efforts is not only 
unheard of but far worse than private business efforts to do 
the same thing. At least private business is not totally on the 
federal, local and state dole. I would remind my friends in 
public broadcasting that working people and union members 
pay taxes too. 

If we wonder about our image with labor and others who do 
not feel a part of our processes, need we wonder more? I 
know every union member who reads this will be personally 
offended as I am. 

However, I think this attitude is reflective of a much larger 
problem: how public broadcasting is perceived by ever- 
growing numbers of average citizens and national organiza- 
tions who increasingly question the worth and purpose of 
public broadcasting. 

I hope we remember who our friends are, who we are really 
here to serve, as we move into a future of lean budgets and 
public scrutiny of more and more of our publicly-funded ac- 
tivities. We are supposed to serve all the people of the United 
States, not just the handful of people who manage stations. 
Yes, our program products should serve minorities, women, 
the average working people, not just the upper crust of our 
culture. Yet we are repeatedly challenged by those who feel 
left out. So much of what we have deliberated over the past 
year has to do with the question of whether most or all of our 
energies and funding decisions should flow through the sta- 
tions, both TV and radio. I remind you that the stations do not 
have our responsibilities as Board members and trustees to 
all of the people through the Congress as representatives of 
the people. Are all of those voices we continue to hear from 
about our leadership, our policies and practices just so much 
wind, or is there merit to their concerns? 

I can assure you that public broadcasting, both nationally and 
locally, is increasingly viewed by labor, by minorities, women, 
and many other groups as hostile to their interests. 

Look at the publication of Dial Magazine and who its intended 
readers are — the more affluent, the better educated. Look at 
our past — and present — relationships with independent 
producers who do not have ties with the stations. Look at the 
serious problems with EEO in public broadcasting, both here 
at CPB and throughout the system. Look at the role of women 
in our management of public broadcasting. 

I would hope that as we move forward we are mindful of this 
record and of the people who feel public broadcasting has no 
impact on their lives, and sadly, no services directed toward 
their interests. Elitism, I think it's called. 

Unless we take a leadership role in this area starting right here 
in this room and within the management of CPB, I'm fearful 
not only that our future will be limited, but more importantly 
that our contributions to public service and the American 
people will be forever in doubt. 

Ladies and gentlemen, so that I am not perceived as having a 
single self-interest, I can assure you that I bring this to the at- 
tention of this Board because it is my personal conviction that 
unless we make a public statement that we do not condone, 
support or otherwise approve of the action proposed in this 
upcoming seminar, we are in jeopardy of losing on the Hill for 
future appropriations the support of organized labor, the work- 
ing class people of this country, the artists and technicians, 
minority peoples and women. We have successfully 
eliminated the possibility of giving public broadcasting the 
option of expanded constituencies at the very time that new 
technologies provide excellent opportunities to serve these 
constituencies. Moreover, our present base of support is 
limited and upscale in social and economic terms. Without a 
broader base of support — and that cannot be achieved 
without offering new and expanded services — our future is 

Therefore, I think it would be advisable for CPB's management 
to review any contract it may have with the NAEB or may have 
in the future with an eye toward deciding whether we can 
morally as well as financially support these practices. 



People in this country have a right to organize or not to 
organize their work place, but we cannot condone the use of 
public money to conduct a seminar on "union busting" while 
at the same time thinking our activities are in the public in- 
terest as our name implies. 

A presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate of 
the United States to this Board carries with it a grave respon- 
sibility to serve all of the people. That's the way I felt — and I 

know you do also — when I received my confirmation. I still 
view my service on this Board in that spirit and hope that we 
as Board members will join together to resolve this leadership 
vacuum by being better informed about what this Corporation 
knowingly or unknowingly permits to happen in our names. 

This seminar is not the problem; this seminar is the symptom 
of the larger problem, which is public broadcasting's insen- 
sitivity to the working classes, organized labor, minorities and 


by Dee Dee Halleck 

On September 15, 1980, the Community Advisory Board of 
WNET/Channel 13 in New York heard presentations from AIVF 
and The Coalition to Make Public Television Public. This board 
was established last year in fulfillment of a mandate outlined 
in the Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978 which 
stated that all public television stations must set up such a 
board. Although not formally empowered, the boards obvious- 
ly have a certain "moral force", as evidenced in Los Angeles, 
where the CAB garnered a great deal of press coverage over 
problems they had with KCET (See article THE INDEPEN- 
DENT, vol. 3, no. 4, page 6). 

The real role of these boards can only be defined by the 
energy and committment of the boards themselves. Presenta- 
tions such as the ones made at this meeting help force the 
community representatives on such boards to take a good 
look at the stations and hopefully begin to question some of 
public television's elitist practices. The dust hasn'e settled at 
either WNET or KCET so we have yet to see what will be forth- 
coming in the way of PTV reform. At the September meeting, 
AIVF presented the following demands: 

1. A significant percentage of Community Service Grants 
(CSG's, the basic CPB grant to stations) and other public 
monies should be designated for local production. Of that 
sum, a substantial (50%) amount should be designated for 
direct local independent acquisition or local independent pro- 
ductions, funded by the station and respecting the right of 
editorial control by those producers. 

2. Independent work should be given prime-time status on a 
consistent basis and should have adequate promotion. 

3. Corporate funding should be insulated from direct pro- 
gramming decision influence. 

4. WNET should present a comprehensive plan, making ex- 
plicit its on-going commitment to the T.V. Lab, which it ad- 
ministers. This plan should insure the funding of the program- 
ming of T.V. Lab's Independent Documentary Fund, even if 
other sources of money dry up. 

5. The WNET Community Advisory Board should support the 
recommendations of the Minority Task Force Report, as well 
as the recommendations of the Coalition to Make Public TV 
Public on affirmative action. 


6. The Community Advisory Board should address the ques- ( 
tion of whether WNET programming and other policies are 
meeting the educational and cultural needs of the com- 
munities served by the station and represented in proxy by 
this board. As a first step in insuring more public participa- 
tion, the selection of WNET's Board of Trustees should be 
made by the Community Advisory Board. 

In addition to AlVF's presentation, the following represen- 
tatives of the Coalition to Make Public TV Public addressed 
the CAB: 

Luis Cafiero, of the Puerto Rican Institute for Media Advocacy 
(PRIMA), stressed the importance of hiring Hispanics on 
WNET's staff, "to add sensitivity to the overall needs of 
Hispanics in the Metropolitan area". 

Peter Chow of Asian Cine-Vision cited a recent EEO report on 
WNET that shows a total employment figure of 614. Of that, 81 
or 13% are Black; 28, or 4.5% are Hispanic and 2, or 0.3% are 
Asian. Only three persons out of the total minority figure are 
in official managerial positions — 0.5%. Peter asked if these 
figures reflect the population of minorities in this area. 

Lillian Jimenez focussed on economics: "The acquisition of 
independent productions is by far less expensive than station 
productions. WNET has the largest budget in the system and 
can afford to purchase more independent productions to sup- 
plement its waning local programming." 

Crane Davis continued to speak about dollars and cents. 
"Private money picks the programs, while public contribu- 
tions and tax dollars are used to pay for the enormous 
overhead. Out of a $25 membership, only $7.50 will be used to 
produce or acquire [programs]. I think this is poor manage- 

Terry Lawler of the Film Fund and the National Association of 
Gay and Lesbian Filmmakers, asked for a show of hands from 
CAB members to see if they supported the Coalition 
demands. The Board unanimously agreed that there should be 
more local programming, more independent productions and 
more open accounting. "Well," said Terry, "Since you agree 
with our points, we'd like to see you take a more active role in 
the management of WNET to help make that come about." 

The Column 


begun for a unique pilot project, designed to bring indepen- 
dent films, videotapes and slideshows to grassroots and com- 
munity groups in New York City. Funded by grants from the 
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ford Founda- 
tion, the first stage of the Community Media Project will in- 
volve contacting community groups and encouraging them to 
participate in program planning, doing a national search for 
media which relates to community concerns and issues, set- 
ting up liaison with branch libraries of the public library 
(where the screenings will eventually be held), and 
establishing a pool of educators and other resource people 
who can facilitate discussions. 

Project Director Marc Weiss is an activist in the independent 
community and an AIVF board member. The Project Coor- 
dinator is Lina Newhouser, who has extensive experience as 
an organizer and trainer for ACORN, a multi-state grassroots 
organization of low and moderate income people. 

The Community Media Project will work closely with the Infor- 
mation Center, a national clearinghouse which helps com- 
munity groups, unions and other activist organizations find 
and use media on social issues. Producers of films, tapes or 

slideshows that might be used in the Community Media Proj- 
ect should send descriptions of their work (not the work itself) 
to 208 West 13th Street, New York, NY 10011 or call (212) 

cations Up-Date is a show independents should keep their 
eyes peeled for. Produced by AIVF Board member, Dee Dee 
Halleck along with Liza Bear and Michael Mclard, it will be 
shown regularly on Channel D, Manhattan Cable at 7:30 
Wednesday and 3:00, Fridays. Recent specials featured an 
interview by Dee Dee with Michael Couzens and was broad- 
cast on November 19 and 21. Mr. Couzens, who is considered 
the "Low Power Czar", is a lawyer with the FCC. He was 
responsible for coordinating the study which resulted in re- 
cent Low Power rule making. Also interviewed was Ben Perez, 
a lawyer with the VHF Drop-In Study at the FCC. 

Three subsequent shows reveal the FCC in action at the Low 
Power hearings. Shown uncut are Chairman Ferris, Commis- 
sioners Fogarty, Jones, etc. as they question the Low Power 
staff on the direction of this rule-making. These hearings will 
start on November 20 at 2:30, continue on the 26th from 8:00 
to 9:00 and conclude on December 7 from 6:00 to 7:00. 


(Carlos Aparicio, an independent video/film producer 
and journalist from Spain, is visiting the States and 
reporting on the development of video production here. 
He recently interviewed Tami Gold of Downtown Com- 
munity TV Center for THE INDEPENDENT. Tami Gold is 
co-coordinator of Festival '80, a showcase for social 
issue videotapes culled from artists across the 

CA: Where did this idea of a community video festival come 

TG: At Downtown Community TV Center (DCTV) we do two 
kinds of video work; one is production work and the other, just 
as important, is community work. We received a grant from 
The New York State Council on the Arts and The National 
Endowment for the Arts to organize a video festival. The deci- 
sion to focus on community works came from the staff of 
DCTV. For the past ten years DCTV has been involved with 
productions about the problems of everyday people. We have 
also been teaching video in communities all over New York — 
to H.S. students, women, at senior citizen centers, in Hispanic 
and Black community centers — so that people could docu- 
ment their own lives. We realized that there were other com- 
munity video groups and independents doing similar work 
around the country. So what was needed at this moment was 
a festival to reflect the community video work being done 

CA: What individuals and media groups submitted tapes? 

TG: We received tapes ranging from EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE 
NAGASAKI. Many productions are about women and older 
people. Behind these tapes are production collectives like Iris 
Video, a group of women in Minnesota. We also received a 
tape from two women who attend Temple University entitled 
MOVE, about a militant community struggle in Philadelphia. A 
couple of New York CETA artists sent their program about 
Local 1199 retirees, and a group of CETA artists from New 
Mexico mailed us their tape about a Chicano family's life style 

SUN DRIED FOODS. We've even received tapes by teenagers 
like THINK TWICE about teenage pregnancy. 

CA: Who is this festival for? 

TG: This festival is going to take place at Downtown Com- 
munity TV Center so it's for the people of the Metropolitan 
area. But more specifically we are working to bring community 
groups together so that they can see an example of what can 
be done with this powerful medium. 

CA: For example which groups? 

TG: Well, on October 2nd we had a press screening and the 
Gray Panther representatives were so impressed that in addi- 
tion to bringing their membership to the festival, they are con- 
sidering distributing some of these productions. This is the 
mind of outreach we are doing. 

CA: What were some of the ups and downs in co-ordinating 
such a festival? 

TG: Although this is the first time DCTV is having a festival, 
and the first community oriented festival, I have found a lot of 
interest and support. A good example of this is when I asked 
the Information Center Media Network for a mailing list. They 
responded with such interest that they became part of the 
festival's development from the very beginning. 

One of the "downs" has been indifference of the "important" 
members of the press. No matter how many personalized in- 
vitations we mailed out, we haven't yet reached them. 

CA: How do you see the outcome of this festival? 

TG: Well, I feel pretty sure that we will have a big turnout 

which is important. But just as important as the festival itself, 

will be the follow up work. By the end of the festival we will 

have begun to open new doors for the distribution of works by 

independents. We are planning to package the best of the 

festival's productions & distribute them to local & cable TV 

stations throughout the country. We are hoping that this 

festival will demonstrate how video can be used as a tool in 

peoples efforts to better their lives. 




FOR SALE: Mitchell NC, 7 Cookes, Arri 2B, 3 
lenses 90mm Macro, 300 Kilfit, Pro fluid 
Tripod, Moviola UL20, Uhler 35-16 Opt. Printer, 
Steenbeck 900W 16mm 6-plate, Bolex Rex 5 
w/lenses, battery pack, motor, Sony DXC 1610, 
Sony VO3800 Portapack, 15mm Frezzolini, 
w/crystal sync, Ang.12-120mm lens. Call (212) 

FOR SALE: CP 16-A outfit. Crystal sync. 
915-57mm Angenieux 1.6 lens. New mag head. 
Double system insert module; includes 2 
mags, 3 batteries & charger, AC unit. EC 
$5,000. Call (313) 642-7700. 

FOR SALE: Sony 3400 black & white camera 

and portapak, Sony 1600 color camera, and 

Canon Zoom lens 18-108 F 1.6. Call (212) 


WANTED: Used Vz " color editing decks. Call 

(212) 233-5851. 

FOR RENT: Sony 1640 color camera and 4800 
3/4" deck. Call (212) 233-5851. 


CULTURE IN FOCUS: December 4-6, a sym- 
posium on independently-produced children's 
multicultural films. Deadline: November 7. For 
details, contact: Con Cardenas, Bilingual Com- 
munications Center, 355 So. Navajo St., 
Denver CO 80223, (303) 744-1264. 

four two-day workshops designed for the inter- 
mediate and advanced producer interested in 
computer video editing. Knowledge of basic 
editing techniques required. Workshop dates: 
Nov. 7, 8 - Dec. 5, 6 - April 24, 25 - May 22, 23. 
Fee: $100; plus $10/night for housing. Contact: 
Synapse Video Center, 103 College Place, 
Syracuse NY 13210, (315) 423-3100. 

SHOP: Helical Video Maintenance, December 
13-14, is designed to encounter the principles 
and procedures used to diagnose and trouble- 
shoot basic operations of video systems. Ex- 
perience required. Registration: $200 by 
November 28. Call (212) 673-9361. 


EDITING ROOM FOR RENT: 6-plate Moviola 
flatbed, shelves, synchronizer, editing table, 
rewinds. Third World Newsreel, 160 Fifth Ave., 
Rm. 911, NY NY 10010. Call (212) 243-2310. 

available. Fully-equipped rooms, 24-hour ac- 
cess in security building. 2 6-plate Steen- 
becks, 6-plate Moviola flatbed, sound transfers 
from Vt " to 16mm & 35mm mag, narration 
recording, extensive sound effects library, in- 
terlock screening room. Long-term Moviola 
rental in tri-state area, 3 month minimum. Con- 
tact Cinetudes Film Prods. Ltd., 377 Broad- 
way, NY NY 10012, (212) 966-4600. 


FOR RENT: 6-plate Steenbeck, complete 
editing facilities. Sound transfers available. 
Call (212) 486-9020. 


cepting videotape productions in the 1981 
competition to be held March 24-28, on equal 
footing with 16mm films. Info., write: BIEFF, 
Box 78-SDB, University Station, Birmingham, 
AL 35294. 

HEMISFILM 1981: accepting entries for the 
February festival until November 25. Films 
must have been produced or released since 
January 1979. Awards will be given in 15 
categories: best feature; best animation; best 
short (27 minutes or less) documentary; best 
long (more than 27 minutes) documentary; 
best director; best short film. Two special 
awards called Arts and Artists. No limit on 
number of films entered. 16mm reels prefer- 
red. Contact: Hemisfilm '81, International Film 
Festival, One Camino Santa Maria, San An- 
tonio TX 78284. 

SFAI FILM FESTIVAL: 3rd International SFAI 
Film Festival will be held March 5-7. Entries 
restricted to 16mm, Super-8, sound or silent 
(magnetic or optical) without editorial splices, 
35 min. or less. Admission fee $10 for in- 
dividuals and $35 for distributors. Indepen- 
dents are invited to participate. Entry deadline 
for films: Feb. 15, 1981. Write for application: 
SFAI Film Festival, Attn. Don Lloyd, 800 
Chestnut St., San Francisco CA 94133. 

FESTIVAL will be held Oct.-Dec, 1981 and en- 
titled Technology and the Artist: 1950-2100. 
Between April 17-July 15, 1981 Peter Rubin 
will tour the US and select material for the 
HEF festival. Early contact suggested. Write: 
HEF, Postbus 5776, 1017 AT Amsterdam, 

in Salt Lake City. The festival program in- 
cludes independent feature film competition, 
indie filmmakers' seminars and workshops 
and John Ford Medallion Presentation. Each 
entry must be independently produced, intend- 
ed for commercial marketplace, and have 
drawn all or part of its financial and/or creative 
resources from the region in which it was 
made. Running time: less than 70 min. Con- 
tact: Lawrence Smith, Coordinator, Indepen- 
dent Feature Film Competition, US Film 
Festival, Irving Commons, 1177 E. 2100 South, 
Salt Lake City UT 84106, (801) 487-8571. 

place March 27-29, 1981 at Red Lion Inn in 
Omaha. Only 16mm and %" videotape entries 
with a release date of 1979 or later accepted. 
Deadline for entries is Dec. 1, 1980. For com- 
plete info contact: Richard L. Bock, River City 
Film Conference, PO Box 14232, Omaha NE 


SOHO TELEVISION, a project of The Artist's 
TV Network, is directed toward the develop- 
ment of television as a medium for bringing a 
broad range of contemporary arts program- 
ming to the TV audience on a regular basis. 
The program airs weekly over Manhattan 
Cable and Teleprompter Cable Systems in 
New York at 10 pm on Monday nights and over 
Manhattan Cable at 11:30 pm on Sundays. 
Each episode lasts 1/2 hour featuring one or 
more works. All SOHO TV episodes must be 
on % " videocassettes, marked with the ATN 
logo and 30 or 60 minutes. Artists paid $50 per 
airing of each half-hour work. 15-minute works 
earn $25 and hour-long works are paid $75. 
Write: The Artists Television Network, Inc.. 
152 Wooster St., NY NY 10012 or call (212) 

WXXI'S SECOND SIGHT series will pay $30/ 
minute for tapes from 2-60 minutes in length. 
Contact: Pat Faust, Director of Programming, 
WXXI-TV, PO Box 21, Rochester NY 14601. 

INPUT 81 SCREENING: Input 81, the annual in- 
ternational PTV conference, is seeking pro- 
grams to be screened next year in Venice, 
March 22-29. They are looking for programs 
"that care responsibly about the audience. . .; 
are conceived as a service to them; defend 
their rights when in jeopardy; help them to 
understand the society they live in; fulfill their 
need to know; entertain them with intelligence 
and a sense of humor." Contact: Howard 
Klein, the Rockefeller Foundation, 1133 Ave. 
of the Americas, NY NY 10036. 

60's FOOTAGE WANTED: In 16mm, b & w or 
color, sound or silent, "cleared" i.e. public 
domain, film footage of the Anti-war/Peace 
Movement, Women's Liberation Movement, 
Counterculture Events, all circa 60's. Needed 
for honest, tell-it-like-it-was documentary. 
Write or call: Robert Rose, Community Arts 
Workshop, 19 Pitman St., Providence Rl 12906, 
(401) 351-2357. 

WCBB IN MAINE has a TV series called Seven 
Dirty Words which they are producing. They 
are seeking works from independents for the 
series, which runs from Oct. through June. 30 
programs are planned to air. Contact: Skip 
Farmer or Mike Mears, Colby-Bates-Bowdoin 
Public Television, WCBB, 1450 Lisbon St., 
Lewiston ME 04240, (207) 783-9101. 

a new documentary programming service for 
cablevision featuring a "wholistic view of the 
world's natural resources and its citizens' 
synergism". The arrangements for material are 
$50/minute of transmitted footage, profit shar- 
ing at the end of the first year according to 
percentage of contributed time, ground floor 
opportunity for national exposure within a per- 
manent service, non-exclusive rights only, no 
tying up the info. Contact: Taylor Barcroft, 
Publisher, New Earth Television Worksystem, 
PO Box 1281, Santa Cruz CA 95061. 


FEATURE FILMS: Nate Cohen is interested in 
acquiring "midnight show rights to feature 
films". Contact Nate at: Sheriff Productions, 
Suite 1313, 501 St. Paul PI., Baltimore MD 
21202 or call (301) 539-7998. 

Media Foundation is soliciting films for their 
television series on rural personalities and 
vanishing resources. Specifically they are 
seeking "independent works that focus on one 
individual as the star of the film." Write: Lover- 
ing Hayward, Director, NHMF, Phenix Hall, 40 
N. Main St., Concord NH 03301. 

WANTED: high quality 16mm or %" or 1" 
videotapes, color only, for Bravo News 
Magazine — a new cable show about the per- 
forming arts. Films should be 15 min. or under. 
Longer films will be considered only if film- 
maker will allow re-editing. Needed: documen- 
taries about performers (music, dance, opera) 
and performances, some experimental films. 
Payment for all works used. Send descriptions 
of films and tapes to: Susan Wittenberg, Bravo 
News Magazine, One Media Crossways, 
Woodbury NY 11797. 

DISTRIBUTION: Film Ideas is eager to provide 
print sales through the distribution of films to 
education, business, TV and selected special 
markets. Assistance also offered in designing 
film projects for increased market shares in 
the future. If you are interested in obtaining 
distribution or consulting for your film or 
videocassette productions write: Film Ideas, 
1155 Laurel Ave., Deerfield IL 60015 or call 
(312) 945-7155. 

IMAGE UNION, WTTW's weekly independent 
showcase, continually seeks tapes. Write: 
Tom Weinberg, WTTW Channel 11, 5400 N. St. 
Louis, Chicago I L 60626. 

VIDEOWEST, the alternative TV show appear- 
ing on up to three stations simultaneously (9, 
20, 26) is seeking material from independent 
producers. Cannot afford to pay but do offer 
showcase for new work that will be seen by a 
sizeable audience. Contact: Fabrice Florin, 
(415) 957-9080. 

WOMEN IN FOCUS, a non-profit feminist 
media centre, is seeking videotapes by women 
that "document and explore topics of concern 
and interest to women, from a woman's per- 
spective." Distribution networks stretch 
through Canada and U.S. Non-exclusive dis- 
tribution agreement. Contact: Women In 
Focus, #6-45 Kingsway, Vancouver, British 
Columbia, Canada V5T 3H7, (604) 872-2250. 

LONG BEACH CHANNEL 8, the US arts cable 
TV station, seeks dance videotapes up to one 
hour in length. Write: Kathryn Lapiga, 11826 
Kiowa Ave., #106, Los Angeles CA 90049. 

WETA in Washington DC is seeking minority 
programming. Contact: Patrice Lindsey Smith, 
Asst. Program Manager, WETA-TV, PO Box 
2626, Washington DC 20013. 

distributors of non-theatrical educational/ 
children's entertainment/business training' 
films, is seeking 16mm educational films. 
Contact: Bill Mokin, Arthur Mokin Prods., 17 
West 60 St., NY NY 10023, (212) 757-4868. 

Media Corporation and Cineco Motion Picture 
Productions seek motion picture screenplays 
for theatrical distribution, targeted to the 
16-29-year age bracket. Screenplays should be 
able to be produced in the Midwest for a 
budget under $1.5 million dollars. Writers sub- 
mitting screenplays must include under a 
separate cover letter authorization and permis- 
sion to open and read the submitted screen- 
plays. Send all materials: Dan White, Pro- 
ducer, Centrill Media Corporation, 449 North 
Walnut Street, Springfield IL 62702. 

formation wanted on recent films made by 
Native Americans, films and video on modern 
social issues, films made before 1945, com- 
munity projects by or involving Native 
American groups, and documentaries made 
since 1977. Information will be used in the 
preparation of catalogue to be distributed to 
Native American tribes and centers, media 
groups and schools. Send info to: Elizabeth 
Weatherford, Project Director, Museum of the 
American Indian, Broadway at 155 Street, New 
York NY 10032. 


market research available. Package includes 
methods of program funding, listing of na- 
tional program buyers, complete research on 
the cable industry, table of broadcasters who 
air independent programming in your area and 
more. For further info, write: Paul Herreras/ 
Director of Marketing, 18035 Canehill, 
Bellflower CA 90706. 

REGIONAL GRANTS to Media Artists from 
Alabama Film-Makers Co-op. Requirements: 
Maximum grant amount is $5,000; grant re- 
quest must be for a personally conceived film, 
video or audio project over which the maker re- 
tains complete control. Production format and 
genre are unrestricted; applicant must be full- 
time resident of ten-state Southeast for one 
year prior to the time of application and retain 
Southeastern residency during the grant 
period. Deadline: November 1. Contact: 
Alabama Film-Makers Co-op, 4333 Chickasaw 
Drive, Huntsville AL 35801, (205) 534-3247. 

applications from filmmakers for long and 
short-term residencies as part of its 1981-82 
Artists-in-Schools program. Deadline for ap- 
plication: January 15, 1981. Write: SDAC, 108 
W. 11 St., Sioux Falls SD 57102, (605) 339-6646. 

establishing a Film Development Fund which 
will initially seed the writing of three original 
feature screenplays that can be marketed in 
established film and television markets. 
Business arrangements will be explored in 
which Columbia College may have some par- 
ticipation, leading to the production of one or 
all of the screenplays developed by the fund. 
Revenue from the sale of the properties 
developed through the fund will be used to 
replenish the fund and for reinvestment in new 
material. Contact: Nancy Rae Stone, c/o Film 
Department, Columbia College, 600 S. 
Michigan Ave., Chicago IL 60605, (312) 

NEH YOUTH PROJECT offers two categories 
for grant support: Major Project Grants 
($10,000-$30,000) and Planning and Pilot 
Grants ($2,500-$5,000). Projects should involve 
young people in participatory learning ex- 
periences in the humanities (workshops, 
outreach programs, media projects). Deadline: 
April 15, 1981 for PPGs. Preliminary proposals 
for MPGs is December 1, 1980. Contact: Public 
Affairs Office, Mail Stop 351, National Endow- 
ment for the Humanities, 806 15th Street, NW, 
Washington DC 20506. 

ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE: Artists (all fields) are 
invited to apply for studio time to work on proj- 
ects utilizing audio production and sound in 
order to develop potential of audio in itself and 
in conjunction with other media. Residencies 
will be 2-5 days from Dec. 1 to Sept. 1, 1981. 
Length depends on time needed to complete 
project. Fully equipped audio facility and pro- 
fessional staff available. For more info on how 
to apply: Contact Greg Shiffrin, AIR, ZBS 
Foundation, RD No. 1, Fort Edward NY 12828, 
(518) 695-6406. 

GRANT WRITING AID: Audio Independents, 
Inc. will assist independent producers with ap- 
plications for funds from the Endowments, 
foundations or from other sources. Service is 
available without charge. Call: George Gelles, 
Director of Al at (212) 580-2551. 


PBS/independent drama production (series). 
Tape. Job involves costing, budgetary 
management. Union knowledge (knowledge of 
contracts) a must. Contact: J. Evangelista, 79 
Park St., Gloversville NY 12078, (518) 725-1454. 

Igor Sunara, (212) 249-0416. 

in any capacity though prefer acting. Ex- 
perience: still photo, narrative text acting with 
film director Robert Cordier (in Paris); acting in 
theater (some tech.). Call: Emily Mann, (212) 


surfacing of sixties leftists and radicals in 
mainstream seventies cinema. Authors David 
Tabot and Barbara Zheutlin interview sixteen 
dissidents, among them former SDS organizer 
and Weatherman Mark Rosenberg, vice- 
president of production at Warner Bros. Write: 
South End Press, Box 68, Astor Station, 
Boston MA 02123. 

Resume, a 22-page booklet, is a guide for in- 
dividuals in the arts management field. 
Writing a Resume outlines the purpose of a 
resume; the categories that should be covered 
to present a complete picture of oneself; an in- 
ventory of marketable skills; notes on the 
interview process; and six sample resumes il- 
lustrating alternate formats. Available for 



$3.50 from Opportunity Resources for the Arts, 
1501 Broadway, NY NY 10036. Postage and 
handling charges are included. Discounts on 
bulk orders. 

NEW GUIDE TO GRANTS: A comprehensive 
guidebook designed to help grantseekers im- 
prove their chances in this highly competitive 
grants marketplace is available from The 
Foundation Center. Foundation Fundamen- 
tals: A Guide for Grantseekers, explains the 
most effective process for identifying, 
researching and applying to foundations for 
grants. Copies are available for $4.95 from The 
Foundation Center, 888 Seventh Ave., NY NY 

Carol Kurzig, includes 12 tables with timely 
facts and figures on grants and giving, plus 46 
illustrations, detailed research examples 
describing how to select foundations active in 
your area or with an interest in your subject 
field. Research and proposal writing check- 
lists are provided as well as extensive bibliog- 
raphies. Foundation Fundamentals (148 pp., 
paperback) is $4.95 with 20% discount on five 
or more copies. Order from The Foundation 
Center, 888 Seventh Ave., NY NY 10019. 

publishing a third catalog of film, video and 

media works. Descriptions of works produced 
with their equipment and services by artists 
and organizations should be submitted. Very 
interested in producers who self-distribute as 
well as those who use distribution agencies. 
Works published in Volumes I and II will not 
be reprinted. Send request for pertinent forms 
to: YF/VA, CATALOG III, 4 Rivington Street, 
NY NY 10002 or call (212) 673-9361. 

TIONS: Copyright Primer for Film & Video in- 
terprets in laymen's terms the new copyright 
laws effective January 1978. Registration pro- 
cedures, terms and extensions, protection of 
unpublished works, and monetary recovery for 
infringement. Newly revised 1979 edition by 
Joseph B. Sparkman, Portland attorney prac- 
ticing Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law. 
Price: $3.50, $2.50 members NWMP. Financing 
the Low-Budget Independent Feature Film: 
Transcripts from our October 1979 seminar. 
"Keeping Budgets Down" by Chester Fox; 
"Can There Be a Really Independent Motion 
Picture?" by Ed Mosk; "Sources of Monies for 
Development, Production and Distribution" by 
Lewis Horwitz; "The Return of the Investment" 
by Eric Weissmann; "Maximizing Government 
Funding" by Sandra Schulberg; "Canadian Tax 
Shelters and the CFDC" by Richard Wise; 

"How to Work With Your Laboratory" by 
Robert Klees; and "Complying With State 
Securities Laws Governing Raising Capital" 
by Del Weaver — 192 pages of expert informa- 
tion from speakers distinguished in banking, 
accounting, producing and entertainment law. 
Price: $20, $18 members NWMP. Write: North- 
west Media Project, PO Box 4093, Portland OR 
97208 or call (503) 223-5335. 

BOOK: Newly revised Global Village Hand- 
book for Independent Producers and Public 
Television is a comprehensive guide for in- 
dependent producers and funders. A thorough, 
up-to-date guide to the public television 
system, has in-depth advice on fundraising, 
promotion, contracts, editorial and technical 
considerations, a course in video basics and 
video hardware, plus a bibliography. Available 
from Global Village, 454 Broome Street, NY NY 
10013, for $18.00 including postage. 


NEEDED: Archival motion picture footage and 
still photographs for two different films: Black 
sleeping car (Pullman) porters and old-time 
traveling medicine shows. Contact: Paul 
Wagner, Smithsonian Institution, Folklife Pro- 
gram, 2600 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington DC 
20560 or call (202) 287-3436. 

Equipment rental specially priced for the independent film maker. 

New C.P.16R reflex 

Rental per week 


Package includes: 

Also available: 

1O-150 Ang. Zoom 

2 mags, 2 batteries, 2 chargers 

barney, raincover, tool kit, changing bag 

semi-automatic thru-the-lens light meter 

studio rig for automatic follow-focus optional 

16mm flatbed in completely equipped editing room 

3/4 inch video screening facilities 


250 West 57th Street, New York NY 10019 




Festival '80 

Perspectives in Community Video 

87 Lafayette St. New York, N.Y. 10013 966-4510 



NOV. 22 "WOMEN" 7:30 P.M. 


DEC. 5 and 6 "OLDER PEOPLE" 1:00 P.M. 


DEC. 5 "CITY LIVING" 8:00 P.M. 


DEC. 6 "HOUSING & LABOR" 8:00 P.M. 





DEC. 13 "OUR YOUTH" 1:00 P.M. 


DEC. 13 "SURVIVERS" 8:00 P.M. 


Donation $1.00 

Festival '80 is partially supported by public funds from New York State Council on the Arts and The National Endowment for the Arts. Addition assistance comes from The In- 
formation Center of Media Networks, The Government and Community Affairs Dept. of WNET 13, L. Mattew Miller Associates, and Sony Corp. of America. 


• too 


- O H 
Z> O 


to _ 









~° z 
3 * 

CO . 

^ -< 

"o 3 3 

z 2 

O 3T 

"^ Z 

> H 

o • 

<5 -< 

o o 

m 3J 


indepe ndent 

Volume 3 IMumberS 

Cannes Film Festival 
"La Camera D'Or ' Award 

For the best first directed 35mm feature film: 

1979 -'Northern Lights" 

by John Hanson and Rob NUsson 

1978 -"Alambrista" 

by Robert Young 

Both films were shot in 16mm. 
The 35mm blow-ups were made by Du Art. 

After years of intensive research and test- 
ing, DuArt has perfected the skill, the 
equipment and the expertise of 16mm blow- 
ups. Using our sophisticated computer 
equipment and unique knowledge, we liter- 
ally live with the film on scene-by-scene 
basis. It becomes a personal and intimate 
relationship between people, film and com- 
puter technology. 

Free. To help film makers, we have pre- 
pared a brochure explaining recommended 

practices of shooting 16mm for blow-up to 
35mm. Write or call and we'll gladly send 
you a copy. If you need assistance in plan- 
ning your next production, feel free to call 
Irwin Young or Paul Kaufman. 




245 West 55th Street New York, New York 10019 
(212) Plaza 7-4580 


I Independent; 

VOL.3 N0.9 

THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Editor: Bill Jones 
Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 
Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 

John Rice 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Compositype Studio 

STAFF MEMBERS: Lawrence Sapadin, Executive Director; 
Leslie Tonkonow, Assistant Director; Alan Mitosky, Short Film 
Showcase Project Administrator; Louise Zimmerman, Short Film 
Showcase Administrative Assistant; John Rice, Media Awareness 
Project Director. 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

BUSINESS By Mitchell Block 4 


Interviewed By Bill Jones 



MEDIA CLIPS By John Rice 21 

COVER: Manny Kirchheimer, Stations of the Elevated 


Here presented are the founding principles of the AIVF, followed by new resolutions that were approved by vote last April of the entire membership, at the same time the 
Board of Directors were elected. 

Since the addition of any new resolutions constitutes a by-law change, the consent of the membership was required. 


Be it resolved, that the following five principles be adopted as the Principles of the 

1. The Association is a service organization of and for independent video and 

2. The Association encourages excellence, committment, and independence; it 
stands for the principle that video and filmmaking is more than just a job — that it 
goes beyond economics to involve the expression of broad human values. 

3. The Association works, through the combined effort of the membership, to 
provide practical, informational, and moral support for independent video and film- 
makers and is dedicated to insuring the survival and providing support for the con- 
tinuing growth of independent video and filmmaking. 

4. The Association does not limit its support to one genre, ideology, or 
aesthetic, but furthers diversity of vision in artistic and social consciousness. 

5. The Association champions independent video and film as valuable and vital 
expressions of our culture and is determined, by mutual action, to open pathways 
toward exhibition of this work to the community at large. 

Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, Inc. 

The AIVF resolves: 

1. To affirm the creative use of media in fostering cooperation, community, 
justice in human relationships and respect of age, sex, race, class or religion. 

2. To recognize and reaffirm the freedom of expression of the independent film 
and video maker, as spelled out in the AIVF principles. 

3. To promote constructive dialogue and heightened awareness among the 
membership of the social, artistic, and personal choices involved in the pursuit of 
both independent and sponsored work, via such mechanisms as screenings and 

4. To continue to work to strengthen AlVF's services to independents, in order 
to help reduce the membership's dependence on the kinds of sponsorship which 
encourages the compromise of personal values. 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor and are 
open to the public. The AIVF/FIVF Board of Directors encourages active member- 
ship participation and welcomes discussion of important issues. In order to be on 
the agenda contact Jack Willis, chairperson, two weeks in advance of meeting at 
(212) 921-7020. 

The next two meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, Feb3-March3 

Both will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. Dates and times, however, are subject to last 

minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to confirm. 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treas- 
urer; Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Lawrence Sapadin, Ex Officio. Stew 
Bird; Robert Gardner, Vice-President; Alan Jacobs, Kathy Kline, Secretary; 
Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, 



By Mitchell W. Block 

"Corporation for Public Broadcasting Receives 
$150,000 Grant for Screening Facility 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been 
awarded a three year grant of $150,000 from the Andrew 
Mellon Foundation to assist operation of a new pro- 
gram screening facility in Washington, D.C. This facility 
is designed for foreign broadcasters to preview U.S. 
public television programs. CPB says the largesse will 
enable it to send some of the best domestic public 
television fare to international competitions and 
festivals. It will also be a contact point for potential pro- 
gram buyers and co-producers from abroad and anyone 
who produces programs for public television. Costs of 
translating scripts and adapting tapes to foreign broad- 
casts are also aided by the grant." (From Daily Variety 
October 20, 1980) 

More and more public television production contracts 
are requiring independents to give public television sta- 
tions and/or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
television rights to the films. Obviously, this screening 
room will assist CPB and local stations in selling in- 
dependent and other films to foreign television. This 
new facility and current public television policies on 
ownership raise a number of questions: 

1. Should public television be in the business of 
distributing shows non-theatrically in the U.S. or 
abroad or licensing shows to U.S. or foreign 

2. How will this ownership effect independent film- 
makers in terms of compensation? 

3. Why does public television simply license 
shows for broadcast instead of producing them 
in-house like the television networks? 

4. Shouldn't the distribution of public television 
shows be given to for-profit distribution com- 
panies who are already in the business of 
distribution instead of being done in-house? 

5. Will public television let the independent pro- 
ducers select how and for what price their work 
will be sold? 

This story will continue and we will try to keep you 
abreast of developments. 


The large distributor's answer to film festivals that pick 
and choose, the Second National Film Market in 
Memphis, Tennessee, received mixed reviews from 
some distributors and excellent reviews from buyers. 
Unlike traditional festivals, the National Film Market is 
a buyer-run market with some distributor input (four of 

the 15 seats on the Board of Directors are filled by 
distributors). The Market as first reported in this 
column (May 1980) was designed for buyers and large 
distributors and not for small film distributors. Unlike 
traditional festivals, the Market does not screen films 
but screens distributors. In its rules (that can be 
modified by the Board appointed distributor's ac- 
creditation committee) a distributor must release at 
least three films a year in order to participate, provide 
replacement footage, and have been in business for at 
least three years. 

The Market was held in the beautiful Rivermont Hotel in 
Memphis, Tennessee. Under the firm guidance of Chair- 
man Hulen Bivins and Market Coordinator Stanford 
Pruett the Market was run like railroads used to be. 
Thirty distributors filled up two half-floors of the hotel. 
Film buyers representing libraries and school systems, 
Federal agencies and other users of 16mm films paid 
$10.00 a day registration and no more than $34.00 a day 
for single hotel rooms. Music, dancing, one dinner and 
a riverboat ride were thrown into the package for buyers 
and sellers alike. In addition, two well-attended 
workshops were held for film users in the late after- 
noons. Unlike the American Film Festival and other 
festivals where films are screened in elaborate pro- 
grams running for days in multiple screening rooms, 
the Film Market published a detailed program book 
showing what each distributor was screening in each of 
the 30 screening rooms. Most distributors had addi- 
tional screening facilities. This permitted the film 
buyers to visit with distributors and request films to 
screen at their convenience. The screening facility my 
little company, Direct Cinema, shared with another 
small company, Little Red Film House, had three 
screens going from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM for most of the 
Market. A few films drew as many as fifteen people for 
their scheduled screenings, but others were screened 
ten to fifteen times for buyers on request. This worked 
out well for us and many of the other companies. 
The Market in my opinion was a success. In many ways 
it performs a valuable service for independent film- 
makers as well as the giant distributors for all have an 
equal shot at the film users. The cost of the Market was 
high, companies going in for the first time were charged 
$2,000.00 and shared participation cost $1,150.00. (In 
our case it was a bit higher because we rented a larger 
room.) This makes some entry fees for single films at 
festivals look cheap. Clearly, the Market is not the 
place to go if one has only one film. However, the 
Market is interested in having small companies and in- 
dependent filmmakers participate. It will not (at least to 
this writer's knowledge) package films or companies 
together. The buyers who come seem to be interested 
in the same kinds of films that are successful in the 
market place. A film that has a special (read "small") 
audience will not do better at the Market than it did 
anywhere else. This year the Market proved itself. I 


suspect that we will return next year and that it will be 
better than ever. The independent film community owes 
them a small vote of thanks. 


Many independent filmmakers have become somewhat 
dependent on launching their films at the American 
Film Festival. Sponsored by the Educational Film 
Library Association, the Festival will celebrate its 23rd 
year in operation in June 1981. The A.F.F. and the 
Educational Film Library Association are linked 
together and at one time or another major distributors 
and filmmakers have felt that the Festival was serving 
one side better than the other. Presently, the Festival is 
getting heat from a number of large and not so large 
distributors. The pressure has been building for a 
number of years. This is related to a number of factors: 

1. Independent filmmakers are self-distributing or 
placing their films with smaller distribution com- 
panies in a lot of cases. 

2. Traditional distributors with high overheads are not 
able to compete with the smaller companies in 
terms of distribution deals. 

3. Independent filmmakers want more say in the 
distribution of their films. 

4. The market for independent films in terms of print 
sales is getting smaller. 

E.F.L.A. is an organization that represents film buyers 
and users. The purpose of the American Film Festival is 
to honor outstanding films. E.F.L.A. does not see the 
Festival as a commercial event. One of the larger 
distributors claimed E.F.L.A. was one-sided, that 
E.F.L.A. was supporting independent films and self- 
distributors over the large distributors. A number of 
large distributors accused E.F.L.A. of using a jury 
system for the Red and Blue Ribbon awards that was 
biased toward independent filmmakers. These com- 
panies and other companies are a bit concerned about 
the whole festival. A number of the "Change the 
American Film Festival" distributors are involved with 
the National Film Market. E.F.L.A. has not ignored this 
or other complaints. They have set up private meetings 
with distributors to discuss the issues. They seem will- 
ing to try and settle or resolve the problems raised by 
these and other distributors. It is my understanding 
that the independent film community has not been 
represented in these meetings. 

Historically, large distributors have entered somewhere 
between 10 and 30 titles a year into the Festival. Some 
distributors are talking about holding back entries. 
Since in 1981 it will cost $50 to enter films shorter than 
11 minutes, $65 for 12-25 minute films, $90 for 26-49 
minute films and $120 for longer films, it is pretty clear 
that spending hundreds of dollars in entry fees is pretty 
easy. Last year the Festival lost money. It has not been 
supporting itself for a number of years. With 10 entries, 

a display table, a full-page (or two) Festival program 
advertisement, hospitality suites to screen films in and 
parties for buyers and so on, costs can add up pretty 
fast. (One large distributor has provided buyers with 
tickets to Broadway shows, etc.) The Festival registra- 
tion fee is competitive with other similar festivals but 
the hotel costs (being New York) are very high. Last 
year a number of the larger distributors seemed to 
enter fewer films. Attendance of buyers (E.F.L.A. 
members) for the full Festival was down. 
E.F.L.A. is in a difficult position. Some distributors are 
unhappy with the Festival, independent filmmakers are 
not jumping for joy and films are not selling like they 
used to. I remember years ago a large traditional 
distributor saying, "You win a Blue Riggon here and 
your film will sell 100 copies." That is no longer the 
case. Independents and distributors have little to gain 
and a lot to lose if the Festival goes under. It is doubtful 
that the Festival will go under soon — but it is always a 
possibility. The American Film Festival needs 
EVERYONE'S SUPPORT to survive. What makes the 
Festival and the problems so interesting to me is that 
two of the three groups necessary for the Festival's 
success have no direct control. E.F.L.A. is run by the 
educational film libraries, not by distributors or film- 
makers. It is run by film users. The problem, in part, is 
that the large distributors are better organized than in- 
dependents and the small distributors. An additional 
problem develops from how the Festival is used by the 
different groups: 

1. E.F.L.A uses it to honor outstanding films. It is not 
considered a "market". 

2. Large distributors feel that the Festival should be a 
market. Previews are expensive and the Festival 
brings their buyers into one place. They also use it 
to preview new films for possible distribution. 

3. Small distributors and larger self-distribution 
groups feel that the Festival is a market. They use 
it to acquire new films, promote current films and, 
like the large distributors, take advantage of seeing 
their customers in one place. 

4. Independent filmmakers use the market to launch 
their films. They want distributors to look at and 
consider their films for possible distribution, they 
want to use their awards for leverage to get a better 
deal if they decide to go with a traditional distrib- 
utor or they want to meet smaller distributors. 

All of the interests of all of the groups are not mutually 
exclusive. The major problem seems to be that E.F.L.A. 
needs to change to make the other groups happy. If the 
major companies pull out of the Festival then the 
Festival will suffer. If independents are forced out for 
any number of reasons, they will suffer. If buyers and 
film users can not afford to come to New York for the 
Festival or feel that the festival is not worth the cost or 
the expense, the filmmakers and the distributors suffer. 
Finally, one or more of the large companies are playing 
down the value of the awards the festival gives. They 
are saying that the awards are meaningless. This does 
not help anyone. 5 


The Festival needs everyone's support. Lines are being 
drawn. Questions need answering: 

1. Is it necessary for the Festival to be held in New 
York City? Could it be held in another city that 
would make it cheaper for buyers to attend? Should 
there be a West Coast Festival? 

2. Are the awards necessary? If so, is the current 
method used to select the award winners fair to all 
parties? Would fewer awards be better? (Cheaper?) 
Should independent filmmakers be on jurys? Dis- 
tributors? Just buyers? 

3. Could E.F.L.A. better serve the needs of its 
members by including distributors and indepen- 
dent filmmakers on its Board of Directors? On 
policy making committees? As voting members? 

4. Can the Festival be improved in other ways to bet- 
ter serve buyers and film users as well as distrib- 
utors and filmmakers? For example, would fewer 
categories for prizes help? A shorter festival? A 
recall room or rooms for additional screenings?, 

AIVF members should try to get involved and work with 
E.F.L.A., E.F.L.A. members and distributors. Perhaps 
the AIVF Board should appoint a committee to look into 
the Festival? The American Film Festival and the 
Educational Film Library Association have done far too 
much for independent filmmakers for us to abandon 
them, or remain silent. 

© 1980MWB All Rights Reserved 

News From The Independent Film and Video Distribution Center 

The Independent Film and Video Distribution Center 
(IFVDC), which came into being in early 1980, has 
recently completed acquisitions for its first series to be 
distributed via satellite to public television. The series, 
which is thirteen hours in length, is made up entirely of 
independently produced documentaries. 

Future series will include independent features, short 
fiction, animation, films done with optical printer, com- 
puter generated imagery and more, ail acquired from in- 
dependent producers. 

On November 20 the IFVDC will feed a one hour pre- 
view of the series over WESTAR I for the purpose of 
showing public television program managers a samp- 
ling of the thirteen hours of programming. The regular 
feeds will begin on January 8, 1981 and continue 
through April 2. Stations will pay for the series on a 
sliding scale based on their yearly budget. 

After the deduction of the satellite cost, 75% of the 
revenues will be paid to the producers and 25% re- 
tained by the IFVDC to offset operating costs. 

In addition, the IFVDC's Director, Douglas Cruickshank, 
is currently finalizing negotiations with the Rocky 
Mountain Broadcast Center in Denver to form an 
alliance with the IFVDC and thereby create a major post 
production facility for independent film and video 
makers. The intent of the alliance is to provide indepen- 
dent producers with state of the art film and video post 
production services at reduced rates. Rocky Mountain 
Broadcast Center which, like the IFVDC, is a non profit 
organization, is fully equipped to handle all stages of 
post production in 2", 1 ", and %" video. The Broadcast 
Center also has complete film and video transfer capa- 
bility and a 16 track mixing studio. A first priority, after 
the IFVDC/RMBC alliance is finalized, will be the in- 
stallation of film editing rooms. 

The IFVDC will begin publication of a quarterly newslet- 
ter around the first of the year. The newsletter, called 
THE SKY'S THE LIMIT, will" keep independents abreast 
of the IFVDC's activities and informed about develop- 
ments in satellite and other technologies which may af- 
fect the distribution of independent work. For further 
information about THE SKY'S THE LIMIT or any other 
facet of the IFVDC contact: Douglas Cruickshank, 
Director; The Independent Film and Video Distribution 
Center; P.O. Box 6060; Boulder, Colorado 80306. 

Video Production For 



JVC KY-2000U 3-tube Saticon 

camera & JVC CR-4400U 3 /4" VCR, 

with operator $250.00 per day 

SONY DXC-1800 1-tube SMF 

Trinicon camera & SONY VO-4800 

% " VCR, with operator $175.00 per day 

Multi-track audio recording/mixing, 

with engineer $10.00 per hr. 


9 East 13th St., No. 3-J 
New York, N.Y. 10003 

(212) 242-2581 

Manny Kirchheimer, Stations of the Elevated 

t 7H<iH»Uf K^c^exmc^ 


Manny Kirchheimer is a consummate independent film- 
maker, having made seven of his own films and having 
worked on over two hundred others during his long 

Kirchheimer's most recent film Stations of the Elevated 
is a magnificent lyrical study of the graffiti-covered sub- 
way trains of New York. 

The film begins at sunrise as the trains are seen at rest 
in the yard. Slowly, they begin to move as if awakening 
from a long sleep until all is movement as the trains roll 
through the urban landscape revealing their messages 
from the ghetto. The film ends with sunset as the trains 
return to rest. 

Stations of the Elevated is structured in a form reminis- 
cent of contemporary jazz with recurring visual riffs. 
Counterpointing the train images are what Kirchheimer 
calls "legal vandalism", advertising billboards. These 
massive representations of faces and bodies seem to 
peer voyeuristically over buildings and through 
tressels. The graffiti seems benign, human compared to 
these ominous watchers. 

All the shots in the film are composed with great care 
to increase the visual tension and search out further 
meaning from the commonplace of city life. Though 
there is no voice narration during the film the images 
speak for themselves. 

BJ: Tell me about your background in filmmaking. 
MK: I went to City College in 1950, which at the time 

was the only school involved with documentaries, 
school was started by Hans Richter, the Dadaist. 


At the time I had no thoughts about making my own 
films. I wanted to go into the industry. You could count 

the independent filmmakers on the fingers of one 
finger. There was Mia Derrin. Cinema 16 hadn't started 
yet, and I didn't know about Frontier Films, that 
wonderful organization begun by Leo Horowitz and 
Paul Strand. Sydney Myers had made The Quiet One 
and taught at City College. The Quiet One was, 
however, not a pure documentary; it used actors play- 
ing a real event. 7 


After college I went into the industry. I was a German 
Jewish refugee (1936 at the age of five) and my proper 
upbringing led me to do more traditional things. I had 
no idea then of becoming a bohemian. It scared the hell 
out of me. But I didn't want to make Hollywood films. I 
wanted to make a new kind of documentary, unlike 
those science and technology films I had seen in high 

I got a job as an editor at one of the better places in 
New York, where I met Sydney Myers. He was working 
on an industrial at the time. Sydney would take me into 
the screening room and show me his film and say, 
"This is the only time you'll see it this way, because 
when the company gets hold of it they'll butcher it." I 
was shocked at the compromises that had to be made, 
but I remained in the industry for 23 years anyway. 

BJ: What kind of work did you do? 

MK: Mainly editing; over two hundred films. I also 
directed nine and shot as many. I learned to shoot film 
by photographing my own film, Claw, which I began in 
1960. Then, having taught myself to shoot, I began 
working commercially. My first shooting job was for 
Leo Horowitz, who became my master. I believe in the 
master-apprentice system. So, many years after I was 
already an editor, I took on a master. Horowitz was run- 
ning a film seminar and I became chairman of that. 

BJ: Let's talk about your latest film, Stations of the 
Elevated. I think, in light of what you've said about your 
background in documentaries, that Stations of the 
Elevated is a very unusual documentary. It is of course 
a document of the graffiti trains, but much more: it is a 
lyrical, almost musical abstraction. Since you began in 
a rather pure documentary tradition, how well does 
what you do now fit what you thought you would do in 
the beginning? 

MK: Your putting the question that way is going to 
make me admit to something I've never admitted to 
before. When I entered the Documentary Film Institute, 
with the exception of Leo Horowitz and Sydney Myers I 
didn't like documentaries at all. I'd seen so many lousy 
ones. Even then I was secretly saying to myself, "I'm 
going to make a different kind of documentary." My no- 
tion then was to do something with found imagery. I 
would shoot it in a documentary fashion and then con- 
struct it in a new way. So Stations of the Elevated is 
what I always wanted to do. Claw, my first film, was 
made up of undirected footage which was then 
reconstructed in a way that is true to the image, but it's 
not handled in a literal way. 

BJ: What do you mean by "true to the image"? 

MK: Despite the fact that I play around with the 
imagery like crazy, I don't manipulate it. I don't make 
the image lie. 

BJ: Give me an example where the image is made to 

MK: In Claw, I deplore the building of the new glass 
skyscrapers in New York, and I deplore even more the 
destruction of the older buildings in their wake. Now I 

was no fan of all old buildings, but in the course of the 
shooting I came to see that these older buildings had a 
sense of human scale and a kind of ornamentation that 
was based on human needs for visual stimulation. 
These elements were lacking in the new glass 
buildings. But in the process of making the film, I found 
that though I felt that these newer buildings were 
deplorable, inhuman giants and sun blockers, I had to 
admit that I was fascinated by them. These new 
buildings were hypnotic, they were beautifully reflec- 
tive. I even loved their power, which intellectually I 
deplore as a symbol of all that's wrong with America. I 
loved them and I hated them. I also loved them because 
they were the enemy, and I needed something to fight 
against for my art. 

Now, understanding these feelings in myself, I knew 
that I couldn't just put down the glass buildings and 
uplift the old ones. So I had to celebrate the beauty of 
the new buildings, as well as be true to my feelings 
about the need for human scale in architecture. And I 
had to leave the audience to its own recreation. This is 
what I mean by "true to the image." 

BJ: What about Stations of the Elevated? 

MK: It was much the same. With my personal sense of 
German orderliness, I originally felt that the graffiti on 
the trains represented destructive disorder and decay 
of the city, but in no time at all I found myself 
fascinated with what was on the trains. On the one 
hand I had this need for order and correctness, and on 
the other I was attracted and moved by the spon- 
taneous expression, and I knew I had to deal with these 
ambiguous feelings. 

BJ: So you explored your feelings about the subject 
during the making of the film, and this then becomes 
part of the film? 

MK: Yes. I knew a number of things about the subject 
that I wanted to include before I began. The graffiti had 
always been discussed either as Art or as degenerate 
scribble. I felt that this was not important, that it was 
really more than anything a scream from the ghetto. It 
had specific meaning. So I wanted to include the 
source in the film, and that accounts for those scenes 
of the black kids in the South Bronx. I knew I wanted 
the graffiti trains in context with other similar 
elements. So before I began shooting, I searched 
around and took note of other urban images that had 
the same kind of strange appeal as the graffiti .— for 
example, that car on a pedestal. For me it is a true 
American icon, and in that way I hate it for what it 
represents, but at the same time I'm fascinated by it. 
These kinds of images led me to the billboards, and 
they set another context for the graffiti. I formulated 
the idea of legal vandalism in the billboards and illegal 
vandalism in the graffiti. This theme I repeated 
throughout the film. 

Once I started shooting I found out a lot about the im- 
agery on the trains. In many of the graffiti images there 
are depictions of fire. Others say things like REVOLT. 
One of the graffiti artists' handle (what he calls himself) 
is USE. These are telling images and slogans. Then 


there is also wish-fulfillment with Santa Claus and 
snowmen. There are entire stories with desert scenes 
and whole worlds unto themselves. 

When it came to editing, the combinations of these 
images and slogans said even more. This was my pro- 

BJ: You said earlier that you don't manipulate the im- 
ages; but isn't the juxtaposition of certain images 

MK: No. Take an obvious example. There is a sequence 
in Stations of the Elevated where I make it appear that 
two large billboards, showing a man's and a woman's 
face, are flirting with one another. But that's exactly 
what those billboards are supposed to do. They are 
about fucking. They say, "If you use this or that product 
you will be a better lay." I shot those billboards through 
a steel overpass, so the eyes were emphasized and 
were more mysterious, in a way animating the faces, 
but I just helped them do what they're supposed to do. 

BJ: So in other words you point out an overall narrative 
formed by all these advertising images. 

MK: Yes, I think you're right. 

BJ: It often appears there are a series of still 
photographs which in turn frame the movement of the 
trains. They are extremely beautiful and unusual 
images. Does this visual style have anything to do with 
the meaning of the film? 

MK: I guess I just believe in beautiful images. There 
was a time when images were all made beautifully, so 
that if Cartier-Bresson in war-torn France shot photos 
of children, the beauty of his image did not detract from 
the impact of his message. This was also true of war 
photography, especially the Germans and the Russians. 
The beautiful context made all the more clear the horror 
of war. Other examples are Walker Evans and Dorothea 
Lange; or further back in history, Daumier or Goya. 

In much of today's documentary work, the image is 
grainy, blurred, ill-composed and over-exposed. This is 
thought to be the image of reality. I don't think this is 
so, and I try to counter this misconception. There is no 
need to degrade the image in order to render reality. 

BJ: But the strong graphic quality of your images lends 
itself to your way of reconstructing the sequences. 
That is, you seem to play with the graphic forms and 
color combinations in series. 

MK: I've been doing this long enough to know that 
these kinds of images work well together. It's more like 
I was never stopped by the composition. I worked in- 
tuitively as a responder to the images. 

BJ: There are a number of other formal elements that 
are used throughout the film. For example, you repeat 
images throughout the film. The same train from a 
slightly different angle is seen again later in the film. In 

standard Hollywood vernacular this would have meant 
memory or flashback, but in your film it was clearly a 
lyrical as well as an informational element that had 
specific relation to the film itself. It didn't disrupt the 
continuity or time sense of the film. Could you talk 
about the structure of the film? 

MK: There was a point while I was making the film at 
which I found myself in despair. I wrote a note to 
myself, "This film is like quicksilver slipping through 
my fingers." Then I felt much better. But I still couldn't 
remember any of my sequences from day to day. I had 
to let it be on its own. 

Then I took a cue from music, and I realized that there 
were possibilities for a whole new kind of structure. I 
wanted to repeat images like themes in music, so that 
images would be seen in ever-changing contexts. These 
recurring themes brought up emotional responses that 
would have been lost, without the need to sentimental- 
ize the subject. But it wasn't structured in any predeter- 
mined way. It wasn't always entirely conscious. In this 
film (Stations of the Elevated), for the first time I just let 
things go and did things because they felt right. That 
for me was a big risk. 

Stations of the Elevated 

STATIONS OF THE ELEVATED will be shown on February 10th 
at the Donnel Library- 12:00 noon and at the Museum of 
Modern Art at 6:00 pm. 





New rules and procedures at the FCC make it possible 
for small television stations (called micro or low-power 
stations) to be started in YOUR community. 

The kinds of stations this ruling concerns could be very 
small. AIVF has a how-to booklet prepared by Parry 
Teasdale, who wrote the FCC report on this topic and 
who operated a low-power station in Lanesville, N.Y. 
(without a license) for five years. The transmission 
equipment at Lanesville cost under $5,000. 

This ruling has little effect in large, densely program- 
med metropolitan areas. In smaller communities, and 
ones with unique geological aspects (like the Rockies), 
it will be easier to find available frequencies. 

Under the new rules, an automatic preference will be 
given to non-profit groups or minority applicants. The 
purpose of this preference was to encourage diversity, 
public service stations and minority ownership. How- 
ever, many large corporations, such as Sears Roebuck, 
have filed multiple applications nationwide. 

The FCC recently published a cut-off list of the first ap- 

plicants from around the country. However, non-profit 
community-oriented and minority groups still have 
priority IF they can apply before January 16, 1981. 

If there is a vacant frequency near you, there may be an 
applicant on this list. You have the right to examine ap- 
plications on file with the FCC. Information contained 
in an application for your area may be helpful to you in 
completing your own application, especially with 
respect to the complex engineering data required. For 
information on who has filed in your area, call AIVF. 

Please spread the word on this and have interested 
people call AIVF, or the FCC Consumer Office 
632-7000, or the FCC Minority Broadcast Office 
634-1770 for more information. TIME IS A CRUCIAL 
FACTOR. Until January 16, all applicants are in the 
same bag. After that it is a first come, first served situa- 
tion. Television frequencies are a finite resource. Apply 

Dee Dee Halleck 
Low Power Committee 

The United States has a long history of successfully delivering TV to people through the use of low power transmitters. Until now, 
these low power stations — called Translators — have been strictly limited by the federal government to the re-broadcast of 
signals from what are called in the television business full service stations. Full service stations must have technically 
sophisticated studios, they must employ highly trained engineers, and they are subject to a vast array of federal regulations; all of 
which makes them very expensive to build and operate. 

In early September of this year, however, the Federal Communications Commission approved the first step in a process that will 
create a whole new broadcast service. This new service will permit existing translators and yet-to-be-authorized low power TV sta- 
tions to broadcast whatever signals they please without the expense of regulations imposed on full service stations. While it will take at least 
another year before the new low power TV service regulations go into effect, the FCC has decided to consider new applications for translator 
licenses in which the applicant asks: 

1. What is a low power TV station? 

Until the low power TV rules are finally adopted, low power TV stations will be considered by the FCC as translators that are per- 
mitted to broadcast programming that does not come directly from a full service station. At present then, if you want to apply for a 
license to operate a low power TV station, you must actually apply for a translator license and with it you must ask the FCC for per- 
mission to originate programming for more than the thirty seconds per hour now allowed under existing translator rules. 

Like current re-broadcasting translators, your originating translator would be considered a secondary service meaning that it may 
not cause interference to full service stations but may have to suffer interference from them. Furthermore, the channel you choose 
for your originating translator would have to be yielded to another operator prepared to use that channel for a full service station 
(although you would have an opportunity to upgrade your own translator to a full service station if you wanted to do so). 

Translators engaged solely in re-broadcasting the signals of full service stations have narrowly defined functions. Originating 
translators which will eventually be classified as low power TV stations will be whatever their operators make them. Some may well 
be small models of full service stations with studio facilities capable of recording and reproducing videotapes and films. Others 
may simply re-transmit the signals received from a satellite or microwave feed. 

Because there are so few translators now originating their own programming in this country (there are several in Alaska and three 
in rural New York State), no one knows exactly what form of low power TV operation will prove most successful. The possibilities 
for programming sources include, but are not limited to: feeds from communications satellites, signals coming from low cost 
videotape recorders and cameras, microwave feeds, video disks, and films. The list of program sources really ends only with the 
imagination of the applicant and the funds to support them. 


The FCC has also decided to consider applications that propose to encode— or scramble— their signal as it is broadcast. Only 
those viewers who leased or brought a descrambling device from the broadcaster could watch an intelligible picture. This method 
of broadcasting is called subscription TV (STV) and will be an option for both public and commercial stations. 

What all of this means is that the specific definition of the manner in which a low power TV station operates will be determined by 
what the operator sees as the needs of the community he or she will serve. 

2. How big an audience will a low power TV station have? 

It is impossible to predict in advance exactly how far the signal from any one low power TV station will travel. And of course, the 
size of an audience depends in large part on the density of the population around the transmitter. 

In general, low power stations could reasonably be expected to cover an area from five to fifteen miles from the transmitter. In 
some cases, where the signal can be focused in a particular direction or the antenna located at a great height, it may travel much 
farther. In other cases tall buildings or natural barriers will drastically reduce the area of coverage. 

Each station will have its own technical requirements and an application for a translator permitted to originate programming will 
have to be filled out by a qualified engineer. Your engineer should be able to give you a clear idea of where your signal will be seen. 

3. How much will it cost for a low power TV station? 

The equipment for a basic low power TV station could probably be purchased and installed for as little as $5,000 to $7,000 depend- 
ing on a great number of factors. Among other things, the cost of building a station is determined by: the power at which the 
station operates; the program source (studio, satellite earth station, etc.), and; the location of the station. The more sophisticated 
the operation of the station, the greater the costs. A fully equipped facility able to perform the same functions as a full service sta- 
tion could easily cost in excess of $100,000. But the basic station is relatively cheap. 

There is no application fee. However, applicants will almost certainly require the services of a qualified broadcast engineer in order 
to complete the application form. Rates for engineering consultants vary both with the complexity of the station and with the abili- 
ty of the applicant to pay. 

4. What is the current status of the rules? 

At present, the FCC has approved a document called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (see appendix). The Commission has en- 
dorsed the idea of low power TV stations but is waiting for more comments from the industry and the general public before making 
the rules final. In the meantime, the FCC will consider applications that petition the Commission not only for a license to operate a 
translator but also to waive the restrictions on the translator that would currently prohibit it from originating programming (i.e., 
from doing anything but re-broadcasting the signals from full service stations). 

The grant of this request for a waiver to originate is crucial because it allows the translator to operate as if it were a low power TV 
station even before the low power rules are adopted. The FCC will approve some translator applications requesting waivers to 
originate between now and the time the low power rules are adopted if those applications are technically correct and if they are not 
contested by other applications for the same frequency in the same area. 

5. Is it necessary to apply right away? 

In general, Yes. If you are thinking about setting up a low power TV station in your community, you should consider that there may 
only be a limited number of frequencies (channels) available in your area for new stations. Thus, you may be competing with other 
applicants. The method the FCC is going to use for handling competing applications is described below and should make it clear 
why a timely application is so important. 

In order to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to compete for the available frequencies, the FCC will publish a list of the ap- 
plications it has received in late November of 1980. This list, published in the Federal Register and also available from the Commis- 
sion is called the "cutoff list." The purpose of the cutoff list is to notify the public of the areas for which applications have been 
submitted and to allow a finite amount of time for competing applications to be filed. 

Sixty days after this first cutoff list has been published the FCC will no longer accept applications for translators in the areas and 
on the frequencies for which applications have already been received. In other words, if you have not filed an application for your 
area by the time the cutoff list expires and someone else has, you will lose your chance to compete for that frequence. 

Even after the first cutoff list is published, the FCC will continue to accept applications for different frequencies in the same areas 
or applications for stations in areas not covered by the cutoff list. Furthermore, there are likely to be several cutoff lists published 
before the final rules are adopted. 

In more remote areas of the country there are almost always many available frequencies and few applicants for them. In these 
areas, there is much less pressure to apply early. 

6. What will happen with competing applications? 

If two or more applicants request exactly the same frequency for the same location, those applications are said to be mutually ex- 
clusive, meaning that only one of them can be approved. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicates that the FCC staff will try 
to resolve such conflicts between the applicants. If that is impossible, the applications will be set aside until the low power rules 
are officially adopted. At that time, a set of criteria for deciding from among competitors will come into play. These criteria have 
been proposed to favor early filing of an application, minority ownership and non-commercial status, but they are not in force at 
present. The Commissioners are pondering just what they should be and until they decide, no licenses will be granted where 
mutually exclusive applications have been filed. 11 


7. Are the final low power TV service rules the FCC adopts likely to be different from those presented in the Notice of Proposed 

Maybe. Even though the Commissioners were unanimous in their approval of the low power TV Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
they have reserved the right to make any changes in the rules they see fit between now and the time the rules are finally adopted. If 
changes are made, the FCC will require that all stations granted waivers to originate conform to those final rules. This means that 
if, for instance, the final rules state that all STV equipment must meet certain technical requirements not spelled out at the time 
your application was approved and you are already on the air with equipment that does not match those standards, you would be 
required to meet the new standards or go off the air within sixty days. 

So there is some risk in planning to build a station now when there appears to be a possibility of a change in the rules by the time 
they are adopted. But this risk has to be weighed against the advantage of filing an early application which at least gives you a 
chance to build some sort of station in the first place. 


The FCC is not presently issuing licenses for low power TV stations. But for the next year or so it will be licensing translators with 
waivers to originate. If you are planning to submit an application for a translator with a waiver to originate (or originating 
translator), you will need to know something about the current translator regulations as well as the rules proposed for the new low 
power service because until the low power rules are adopted, the FCC will be using a hybrid set of standards composed of the 
translator rules and the low power proposals. 

The following sections outline some of the translator rules as they now exist and some of the major changes proposed for the low 
power TV service. Where it is possible, the criteria the FCC will use to approve new originating translator applications will be in- 
dicated. But, these are the basic facts any prospective applicant will need to know. 

1. Translator and Low Power TV Documents 

There are several documents that you will need to fill out your application. 

A. Parts 73 and 74 of the FCC rules and regulations. Part 74 concerns the present translator rules and part 73 covers broad- 
cast station requirements. They are available from the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 "M" Street, 
Washington, D.C. 20554. 

B. the "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of: An Inquiry into the Future Role of Low Power Television Broad- 
casting and Television Translators in the National Telecommunications System" (BC Docket No. 78-253, RM 1932). 
Available from the FCC. You should address this inquiry to the Broadcast Bureau to the attention of Michael Couzens, Es- 
quire. This was also published as Part V of the Federal Register for Friday, October 17, 1980 starting at page 69177. 

C. "Report and Recommendations in the Low Power Television Inquiry," also available from Michael Couzens in the Broad- 
cast Bureau. This document is the staff report that led to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and contains all the 
research that went into the proposals. 

D. Form 346 Translator Application Form & Tding reprint 

E. NAB Memo 

2. Ownership Requirements 

Any individual, group or organization may apply for a translator license (with or without a waiver to originate). Government agen- 
cies are also eligible applicants. Applicants must be U.S. citizens. 

The three TV networks may not own translators of any kind. TV and radio stations may own translators but there are several restric- 
tions. The most important one for low power TV is that TV and radio stations (including public broadcasters) may not own 
originating translators in the same areas they serve. No applicant will be granted more than one license for a translator with a 
waiver to originate in the same area. 

3. Financial Support 

The FCC sets few restrictions on the manner by which translators support themselves. No new restrictions will be set as the FCC 
considers applications for waivers to originate. In fact, STV, an option not previously available, will now be considered for approval. 
Applicants may propose to operate originating translators on either a commercial or a non-profit basis. 

Some of the methods translator operators now use to support their facilities include: on air solicitation of donations; the use of 
local, and; advertising (translators that re-broadcast the signals from full service stations may not delete commercials from those 
stations without the prior consent of the full service station). All of these methods of support plus STV will be available to ap- 
plicants for originating translators depending on the type of operation they choose. 

4. Operator Requirements 

The FCC is required by law to see that all TV stations are attended by a licensed operator. This law was modified in the case of 
translators because they were originally intended only to rebroadcast the signals from full service stations. Thus, translators are 
allowed to operate unattended by an operator. 

But translators with waivers to originate must be attended by licensed operators because they do more than simply re-broadcast 
an over-the-air signal from a full service station. The FCC will make a distinction, however, between the level of qualification of the 
licensed operator required for a full service station and that required for an originating translator. While a first class FCC 
engineer's license is required at a full service station, only a restricted permit would be required of the operator of an originating 
translator (except for the "proof of performance" maintenance on the transmitter). 

It won't hurt an applicant to have a first class FCC engineer on the payroll, but in most cases it probably will not be essential. 


5. Technical Standards 

The general emphasis in technical standards for translators, whether or not they will originate programming, is on the prevention 
of harmful interference to other broadcast services. These standards are set forth in Subpart G of Part 74 of the FCC Rules and 
Regulations. As a practical matter, they can be met by any applicant using what is called "type accepted" equipment, i.e., equip- 
ment for which the manufacturer's specifications (and its actual performance) meets or exceeds those FCC standards. 

The approval of applications for originating translators will not require type accepted origination equipment. The FCC is prepared 
to let the viewers decide what signals are watchable and what are not as long as those signals do not cause interference. This also 
means that the expensive and complex test and monitoring equipment that full service stations are required to have will not be re- 
quired for originating translators. 

Further technical considerations involve the available frequencies and the powers at which translators may operate. These con- 
cepts are touched on briefly the following paragraphs. 

• Frequency (Channel) Assignments: 

In the late 1940's and early 1950's the FCC attempted to devise a method of allocating TV station licenses that would provide for 
the greatest amount of coverage with the least possible interference. Part of what they came up with was a list called the Table of 
Assignments. The Table of Assignments designates the channels (frequencies) that can be used in most of the metropolitan areas 
of the United States. It covers both VHF (channels 2 through 13) and UHF (now channels 14 through 69 although some stations still 
operate up to channel 83) bands. Both full service and translator applicants would normally be expected to use these frequencies 
where they are available. There are, for instance, over two hundred UHF channels set aside on the Table for specific communities 
but presently unused. 

In some cases, either for convenience or because no frequency has been assigned or none is available to an area, translators may 
be licensed to operate at frequencies not designated for the area on the Table — "off the chart." In order for a translator to be 
licensed to operate on one of these unassigned channels, it is necessary for the applicant to prove that the translator will not in- 
terfere with any other broadcast service, especially full service TV stations. The application must show that there is an adequate 
milage separation to prevent the translator from causing interference with the signal from the nearest full service station on the 
same frequency or that intervening terrain makes interference all but impossible. 

With UHF stations, there is a whole array of technical "taboos" — restrictions on channel assignments for frequencies not the 
same as those of the proposed translator but on which the translator might cause interference. No application for a translator 
operating off the chart will be considered by the FCC if there is not a complete showing that the proposed translator will not cause 

The FCC staff report on Low Power television recommended that several of the UHF taboos be eliminated or reduced in stringency; 
but it will still take an engineer familiar with the taboos and other transmission standards to pick the best channel off the Table 
and to design the most effective transmission system for a translator. 

• Station Power: 

Under most circumstances, VHF signals will travel farther more efficiently than UHF signals of comparable strength. To compen- 
sate for this relative disadvantage of UHF stations, the FCC has authorized UHF translators to operate at higher powers than VHF 
translators. This procedure will be continued in the granting of licenses to translators wishing to originate programming. 

The present FCC translator rules state that VHF translators operating on channels found on the Table of Assignments must broad- 
cast at a transmitter power of 100 watts while UHF translators on the Table must use powers of 1,000 watts. Off the chart, UHF 
translators may use powers of up to 100 watts while VHF translators are limited to a maximum transmitter power of 10 watts west 
of the Mississippi and 1 watt east of the Mississippi. 

The FCC staff report that formed the basis for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on low power TV recommended, among other 
things, that VHF stations off the Table be allowed to operate at 10 watts regardless of their location. 

6. The Application Process 

The application for a translator is filled out on FCC form 346. Applicants requesting waivers to originate will also use this form. If 
an application is technically correct in all respects (legal, financial, and engineering), it is accepted for filing. 

Filed applications are reviewed by the FCC staff. If there are no competing applicants and if the application, complete with the re- 
quest for a waiver to originate, is not extraordinary enough to warrant the attention of the entire Commission (that is, if it conforms 
to the general guidelines set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), the FCC staff will approve the application within 90 days 
and grant a construction permit. 

The applicant then becomes the licensee and is expected to go ahead and build the translator facility as fast as possible. If the 
licensee does not build the proposed station within a reasonable amount of time, the FCC has reserved the right to review the ap- 
plication again and possible to revoke the license. 

In cases where mutually exclusive applications cannot be resolved, the Commission has decided to hold over all applications until 
the low power rules are adopted and the judgment criteria are resolved. 


1. The form and exhibits: 

Form 346 is seven pages long and contains only three separate sections: Legal; Financial, and; Technical. The financial and 
technical sections will definitely require extra information that will not fit on the form. This information is referred to as "exhibits" 
and must be clearly numbered in sequence by the applicant. 


2. Waiver requests: 

There is no place on form 346 to request a waiver to originate. Therefore, all information pertaining to plans to originate must be 
filed as exhibits and attached to each of the application forms. This includes any supporting data you may want to submit. A cover 
letter briefly describing your origination plans should also be attached to the front of your application. 

3. The help you'll need: 

To be eligible for a translator license you must prove to the Commission that you are both financially and technically capable of 
building and operating an originating translator. You might find it helpful to talk to an accountant about the financial section. You 
will definitely need to consult a broadcast engineer in order to complete the technical sections. 

Two of the places you might want to try when looking for a broadcast engineer are: 

The National Translator Association 

P.O. Box 212 65 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 

The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers 
William King, Secretary 
1730 "M" Street, Suite 400 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

4. Ascertaining community needs: 

The FCC does not require that translator applications be accompanied by any in depth justification of the needs of the community 
the station plans to serve — called "ascertainment" in the language of full service stations. However, if you are applying for a 
waiver to originate, it would be a wise idea to include with your application some indication of the needs or desire of your com- 
munity for the type of service you are proposing. This type of showing might take the form of an informal survey done in your com- 
munity or a petition circulated throughout your proposed area of coverage. 

5. Incorrect or incomplete applications: 

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that incorrect or incomplete applications will not be accepted for filing. They will be returned 
to the applicant, causing delays in the processing of the application and the possible loss of the chance to compete for a license 
in a particular area by missing the cutoff date. 


ASCERTAINMENT — The formal process by which full service stations show that they have surveyed the programming needs of 
the communities they serve. Formal ascertainment of community needs is not required of applicants for originating translators 
(low power TV stations). 

CHART — Table of Assignments. 

CUTOFF LIST — The roster of applicants who have applied for translators (including those asking waivers to originate) published 
by the FCC before any decision has been made on these applications. Once the cutoff list has been published, there are 60 days 
during which competing applications may be submitted to the FCC. 

EXHIBIT — Extra Information (such as a map or a financial statement) attached to a translator application. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) — The independent federal regulatory agency established by Congress to 
supervise all broadcast services. There are seven Commissioners all of whom are appointed by the President and approved by 

FIRST CLASS FCC LICENSE ("FIRST CLASS TICKET") — The license issued by the FCC to anyone who can pass a detailed test 
developed by the Commission on the theory and practice of broadcast electronics. A first class license holder is supposed to be 
able to operate and maintain the transmitter and associated equipment of any broadcast station. Full service stations must have 
first class license holders on duty when they are transmitting. 

FREQUENCY — The frequency of a TV station usually refers to the channel (2 through 69) on which the station broadcasts. 
Frequencies are expressed as numbers of Hertz (Hz) and, in TV, in Megahertz — millions of Hertz. 

FULL SERVICE STATION — A television station meeting all the requirements of Part 73 of the FCC Rules and Regulations. Full 
service stations must have studies, they must have first class licensed operators on duty, and they must meet many stringent 
technical standards. A small full service station might cost about $2 million to build. 

LICENSEE — The person or group granted a license by the FCC. 

LOW POWER TV STATION — A proposed type of TV broadcast facility operating at powers similar to those of existing translators 
but allowed to originate programming from a variety of sources. Low power TV stations, as proposed, would not have to meet all 
the regulatory requirements of full service stations. 

MICROWAVE LINK — A method of delivering a program source to an originating translator via microwave transmission. Microwave 
transmitters must be licensed by the FCC. 

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE APPLICATIONS — Applications submitted to the FCC for translators operating on the same frequency in 
the same area. During the time the FCC is considering the low power TV proposals, the Commission will not process mutually ex- 
clusive applications. 


NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING — The document prepared by the FCC staff and approved by the 7 Commissioners. It 
details the proposals for a new low power TV service. The FCC is soliciting comments from the public before the Notice of Pro- 
posed Rulemaking is made part of the official rules and regulations. 

ORIGINATING TRANSLATOR — A licensed TV broadcast facility operating at translator power but that has as its program source a 
signal other than one coming directly from a full service TV station. 

ORIGINATION — Any program sources other than the signals coming directly from full service TV stations. Some forms of origina- 
tion are: videotape recorders; video cameras; satellite earth stations, and; microwave links. 

RESTRICTED PERMIT — A broadcast license issued to any US citizen who registers with the FCC. There is no test of special 
technical knowledge required to obtain a restricted permit. An operator of an originating translator will have to have at least a 
restricted permit. 

SATELLITE EARTH STATION — An antenna and associated electronics that receive the signals from a communications satellite. 
Satellite Earth Stations do not have to be licensed by the FCC. 

SECONDARY SERVICE — The status of translators (and eventually of low power TV stations) that dictates that they may not cause 
interference to full service stations but may have to suffer interference from them. Secondary status also indicates that a 
translator operator will have to give up his or her frequency assignment to another operator wishing to use the same frequency for 
a full service station. 


(SCRAMBLED TV) — A TV system in which a broadcast signal is encoded at the transmitter so that only those viewers who buy or 
lease a decoding — or de-scrambling — device can watch intelligible pictures. The FCC staff has recommended that current STV 
rules be relaxed so that STV systems can be used by originating translators (low power TV stations) throughout the country. 

TABLE OF ASSIGNMENTS — The list of channels that may be used in cities throughout the United States. The Table notes all the 
channels for the cities listed regardless of whether or not they are presently being used. A channel not listed on the Table may be 
available but only if the applicant for that channel can prove that the new channel meets all FCC interference criteria. 

"TABOOS" — Technical restrictions on the assignment of UHF channels. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking recommends the 
relaxation and, in some cases, the elimination of several UHF "taboos." 

TRANSLATOR — A secondary broadcast facility licensed to re-transmit the signals from a full service station at powers of up to 
1,000 watts on UHF or 100 watts on VHF. Translators are permitted to originate up to 30 seconds per hour. Translators may be 
granted waivers to originate more than 30 seconds per hour between new and the time the FCC adopts the low power TV service 
proposals. Translators operating in the re-broadcast mode do not have to be attended by an operator. 

TRANSMITTER — A device that amplifies a TV signal and feeds that amplified signal to an antenna for transmission through the 

WAIVER, WAIVER TO ORIGINATE — A special permission granted by the FCC as part of a translator license that allows the 
translator to originate for more than 30 seconds per hour. 



Moderator- Michael Fitzgerald 

The following transcripted panel discussion featuring foreign 
buyers from the major centers in Europe and Canada was held 
this October in New York as part of the Second Annual In- 
dependent Feature Film Market, co-sponsored by the Indepen- 
dent Feature Project and the AIVF. 

Feature Films from all over the U.S. were screened for foreign 
and Domestic buyers and panels were held to discuss the 
nature of the International market. 

The outcome was a great success for those involved and a 
major advancement for the independent community at large. 
Further information on the Second Annual Independent 
Feature Film Market, (as well as the second part of the follow- 
ing transcript) will be presented in our next issue. 

This concludes the Foreign Buyers transcript begun in our 
last issue (vol. 3, no. 7-8). A complete set of materials covering 
all the activities of the Second Annual Independent Feature 
Film Market is available from the Independent Feature Project. 


Q: I wanted to ask about various formats. We're talking 
about independent features. Does that exclude an hour 
program, or perhaps a four-hour program that might 
have been aired on TV, or a one- or two-night format, or 
do you use all strictly 90 minutes or 2 hours for the 

MF: Are you talking specifically about television? 

Q: Yes, about television, and about something that 
might have been produced independently here in the 
United States for television rather than a theatrical film. 
Does that have any effect on your buying policies? 

Jouvet: Once upon a time, French television was buy- 
ing only one-hour features. Now they buy 90 minutes. 

Q: Would they buy a mini-series? 

Jouvet: Oh yes, sure. 

MF: So anything goes. 

Jouvet: No. It's not anything goes because if you have 
one fifty-two minute drama you can't sell it. 

Q: You can't sell it? 

Jouvet: No. If it's a mini-series, it's fine if it's one hour, 
but if it's one single program it has to be 90 minutes. 

Q: But can it be more, can it be 3 hours? 

Jouvet: In that case they show it in two parts. 

Singer: In Canada, since we get all three US networks 
as well as PBS, and most of us have cable, it's very im- 
portant for American producers to make arrangements 
with a Canadian distributor to handle Canadian televi- 
sion prior to the date that it's going to go on network. 
Then it could be done simultaneously and you would 
get additional money from Canadian television, which 
otherwise you wouldn't get. 

Malmkjaer: In Scandinavia you can sell any kind of pro- 
gram, any length you want. We've never cut from the 
movies that we show, at least not in Denmark. And we 
have recently shown a very short film that you're going 
to see. We're just going to show now Three Wooden 
Clocks, which is more than three hours. 

MF: Just as long as you like it, it's going to go on? 

Malmkjaer: Yes. 

MF: Belgium? 

Lachterman: Our position is more or less the same. We 
buy all kinds of programs now: 90 minutes, 8 hours. We 
once bought an 8-hour French program. We never cut it; 
sometimes we split, but with the agreement of the 
author and the producer. 

Q: I would wish you to comment on the necessity for 
dubbing. I've heard that it would be easiest to sell to 
Germany if the film was already dubbed. In the situa- 
tion with the strategies of dubbing, for instance, with 
Belgium or in Switzerland: if you were to sell to 
Switzerland, have them do the French dubbing and then 
sell that in turn to the French media. Would you 
elucidate on that please? 

MF: I think Mr. Lackshewitz could answer that. 

Klaus Lackshewitz: It depends very much on who does 
the dubbing. We would prefer that we could supervise 
the dubbing. I don't see any reason why you should try 
to dub it first and then sell it to us. 

Q: How about the French and other countries? 

Lackshewitz: You should let them absorb that expense; 
it's very substantial. 

Q: What about French media? 

Jouvet: I think in France it's the same; you make your 
sale first and then you dub. You have to dub yourself, 
but you don't do it before, it doesn't pay. 

MF: What about Belgian television? 

Lachterman: It depends. Commercial films are dubbed, 
but essentially they are dubbed primarily by French TV, 
so we just buy the dubbed version. But, in your case, 
generally they are not dubbed. They are subtitled too, in 
French of course. Flemish TV never dubs; they always 
put the original version on the air, plus Flemish sub- 


Q: Would a film that was either subtitled or dubbed in 
French, in Belgium or in Switzerland be acceptable to 
France? Or vice versa? 

MF: Belgium would like to answer that one. 

Lachterman: I don't remember any. You mean dubbed 
or subtitled? 

Q: I mean by way of saving you, being economical 
about it, either the subtitling or the dubbing. Would it 
be acceptable? 

Lachterman: No. Dubbing is very expensive, and that's 
why we always wait until French TV shows it, and then 
we buy it. In the case of subtitling, we have a very good 
electronic device that was built in Brussels. I think a 
subtitle is good, but I don't remember any film bought 
that way by French television. 

Jouvet: There's no problem for the French dubbing be- 
tween Belgium, Switzerland and France. There is a 
slight problem with French-speaking Canada, because 
French-speaking Canada wants their dubbers to make 
their living. 

Q: I'm addressing this question to all of you. American 
independent productions generally feature unknown ac- 
tors and actresses. These people haven't made a name 
for themselves yet. How does this affect your purchas- 
ing decisions for American independent films? 

MF: I'll answer that for a second from my point of view, 
then they can answer from theirs. On the theatrical 
market around the world, as in the United States, to sell 
a picture without so-called recognizable elements is 
enormously difficult. And of course if someone buys it 
the price goes down accordingly. That happens certain- 
ly on guarantees, and affects how much mileage you 
can get from theatrical distributors in Europe and 
elsewhere in the world. I think it probably applies to 
television as well — maybe a little less so. I'm not sure 
because there's a wider variety and a greater need for 
product; I think there may be somewhat more effec- 
tability in the television market internationally for pic- 
tures which do not seem to have a huge market. But I'd 
like to refer that to other people. 

Malmkjaer: I can really see a big difference for our pro- 
grams, because personally I have to state, as my col- 
leagues did, that I'm picking out the films I like and I 
love. This does not primarily occur to well-known 
actors. We always have the possibility to program it in a 
certain time slot, for example at 7:30, 8 o'clock, where 
our audience would not be the huge audience that 
would expect a star-studded film. So we have so many 
different possibilities to programming the films that 
there's no problem at all. 

MF: There's no question that in the European market 
particularly there's a much wider range of pictures 
which can be bought. Obviously there isn't as much 
money in it as in the United States, but there's a much 
wider range of pictures which they are willing to show 
than they are in the United States. That is my ex- 
perience. Would you like to comment? 

Lachterman: My answer is more or less the same: we 
have many time slots. Of course, we put commercial 
films Thursday night, Saturday night, and we are not 
going to put unknown films there. It would be silly; but 
we have very good other time slots where we can put 
those films, and then it is of no importance whether the 
directors are known or the actors are known. If the film 
is good we just put it on the air. 

MF: They do that in the United States too, but it's 
mostly I Love Lucy re-runs. In France, I'm sure, the 
same thing applies. 

Jouvet: No, it would be too easy. We really need either 
well-known directors or well-known actors, except for 
these two special things which I've spoken of: TV films 
will not expect that, and a subject which is really strik- 
ing. But on the whole we need new films. 

Q: Big stars? 

Jouvet: Big stars; it helps a lot. 

Probst: I have something positive. Within those art 
theatres in Europe, of which there are over a thousand, 
they absolutely don't care if it's a big star or a famous 
director. What they care about is the quality film, extra- 
ordinary quality film that uses lots of light. This is the 
central thing, then they go for it. 

Q: What about documentaries — this is for the TV 
buyers — if it's a theme that you think will play in 

MF: The question is, would you buy it before it's a 
finished product? 

Sykes: The answer to that is yes. Most of you who are 
making documentary films are obviously very 
discouraged with what was discussed here so far. And I 
don't think anybody wants to discourage you from mak- 
ing documentary films. From our end, one of the 
reasons I say that we're not that terribly interested is, 
as you see with my European colleagues, it's very 
tough to sell documentaries to them. And we don't tend 
to make an awful lot of money on them. That is the real 
reason. The prices that are paid are not very high, and 
therefore the prices that we sell them at are not very 
high. But it isn't impossible. It just depends on the sub- 
ject. If a film is very very good — take a film that's been 
seen here, On Giant's Shoulders that Mark Shivers did 
out of London — we probably would have bought a film 
like that, a very powerful film. But it's got to be very 
powerful and very unusual. 

Malmkjaer: In the smaller countries, for example 
Denmark, there is a way of getting around that problem. 
A wise thing to do is to approach — for example, in 
Denmark we have a governmental body called the 
Government Film Central or the State Film Central. 
They buy and distribute documentaries, a lot of 
documentaries. They don't have a lot of money but they 
do buy a lot of movies. You can sell your films to them 
and sell them to television shortly afterwards. That way 
you make double the money you would make otherwise. 
You can do the same thing with feature films. Find a 
distributor, make a deal with them; because in a small 



country like Denmark, within 9 months, a year and a 
half, your film will have been shown all over the place. 
So after, say, 18 months, it will be good for television. 

Jouvet: There is a market for documentaries, the docu- 
mentaries can fit in magazines, the hour-long com- 
posite shows for T.V. 

MF: You ought to make it explicit: small films, 10- 
minute films, chained together? 

Jouvet: Yes, they put them together around the theme, 
and they make one program out of all the documen- 
taries. So it's not a hopeless case, it's just a very dif- 
ficult one. 

Q: You said that you paid for documentaries by the 
minute. If I have a ninety-minute documentary, and your 
TV buys 52 minutes of it, would you pay for the 90 
minutes or the 52 minutes? 

MF: I think the general consensus is 52. 

Q: I'd like to talk to you about the CICEA. Maybe you 
could elaborate on how you operate. Do you buy films, 
do you finance them? If people have films that already 
have German subtitles or French subtitles does that 
make them more attractive? Who makes the subtitling? 
How much gets paid for the films? What about advertis- 
ing and promotion? Who makes the deals and who 
keeps track of them? 

Alexander: The decision by the CICEA to buy films for 
a various number of countries was done in May, and the 
work is right at the head. We are now planning to create 
a commercial company in Switzerland which will be the 
partner of film sellers. We intend to keep the cost low 
by, for instance, making an international poster in three 
languages to it can be used in England as well as in 
France — that means in French, German and English. 
We intend to take all the copies orders together, and we 
also want to have the free traveling of copies, which is 
not normal in Europe because you have borders. I can't 
tell you too much because we're just working on it. We 
might be ready and all set up by May of next year. So 
we'll start then really looking for special films and dif- 
ferent ones. 

We would like to cooperate with some independent 
American dealers too, because we think the whole 
United States is very important. We can't just make it in 
Europe. We have a lot of interesting films in Europe pro- 
duced by independent people like you. We would like to 
send them here, have an association here and have 
their association find films for Europe. The general idea 
of it is that we are looking for artistic films. Anybody 
who is famous today once did some artistic, interesting 

Q: It's often possible when you make a television sale 
to include in the contract that the film will not be 
shown on television for a year or a year and a half. In 
some cases it's possible nevertheless to be paid for the 
television showing although it isn't actually being 
shown — in other words to be paid for the showing 
upon the signature of the contract or perhaps upon the 


delivery of the print. That is something of importance to 
American citizens, in terms of the difficulty of them 
distributing from here, because that money can then be 
used by you to finance a theatrical opening here. 

MF: The question has come up, and certainly it is 
possible to get advance payments, or a Polytel does 
normally, payment in steps, staggered payments. Do 
you want to address that or is that accurate? 

Sykes: Basically accurate. 

MF: So it is absolutely possible to arrange that in the 
contract and to have a television protection clause, 
which is sometimes, in fact most of the time, necessary 
for theatrical production overseas. 

Q: In terms of procedure of selling to European televi- 
sion, do you in fact look at the films as they're sent 
there, or do you want the promotional reels first, or are 
you more apt to look at it if it goes through a broker? If 
we could send you a print with promotional material, 
would you look at it or somebody in your office look at 

Malmkjaer: We look at the film itself, not at the publi- 
city. In that connection I may add that we prefer to look 
at the material on cassettes. I know there's a reluctance 
to the cassette thing because it may be used by people 
who should not use it. This is not so in Scandinavia. We 
do look at the cassettes and we return them, and it's a 
very easy and very cheap way of handling the film, in- 
stead of sending the 16mm prints which would lie 

Alexander: There is a slight difference with us. 
Because we are traveling, there's always a possibility to 
have an arrangement made for us to see the film in New 
York or Los Angeles, or anywhere in Europe, but if you 
have to look at cassettes the whole day you get much 
more tired than when you're looking at prints. It's dif- 
ficult to look at cassettes. It's possible, but if you can 
provide the print it's much better. 

Q: What kind of cassettes, 50 or 60 cycles? 

Alexander: Any kind. 

Malmkjaer: In little TV stations from little countries, we 
are used to watching cassettes from the morning to the 
evening without being too tired. We have no choice, 
that's our job. We can read all types of cassettes: NTC 
or Bell, or even Seicom which is a French system; 50 or 
60 cycles, 110 or 220 volts. 

MF: I think Mr. Alan Jacobs would like to make an an- 

Jacobs: Before we all retire, I wanted to thank you all 
for coming and on behalf of the Independent Feature 
Project, and the Association for Independent Video and 
Filmmakers. I think we've launched here a very exciting 
market, the second I hope of many to come. I just 
wanted to take this opportunity, because I don't know 
whether we'll all be together again soon. Many people 
are responsible for this market; both organizations and 
people outside have put in a lot of time, a lot of energy 
to make this as exciting as I think you're going to find 


Foreign Buyers who attended the Second Annual Independent Feature Film Market 
are presented in the following list. 

Georg Alexander 
WDR/Westdeutsche Rundfunk 
Los Angeles Office 
2985 Hutton Drive 
Beverly Hills, CA 90201 

Sylvia Andreson 
International Forum des 

Jungen Films 
Berlin Film Festival 
Welserstrasse 25 
1000 Berlin 30 
West Germany 

Lars Baeckstroem 
SR 1 

Sveriges Radio 
S-105 Stockholm 

Hans Bouak, VARA, Dutch TV 
62 Bowman Avenue 
Portchester, New York 10573 

Ian Christie 

British Film Institute 

127 Charing Cross Road 

London WC2H OEA 


Denise Delvaux 

Belgian TV 

Flemish speaking Belgium 

Andi Engel 

Polytel International 

Artificial EYE 

211 Camden High Street 

London NW1 


Franz Everschor 
Degeto-Film GMBH 
8 Bertramstrasse 
6000 Frankfurt am Main 
West Germany 

Emile Fallaux 


476 Broadway 

Apartment 9A 

New York, New York 10013 

Helle Halding 
Dan marks Radio 
2860 Soborg 

Klaus Hellwig 

Janus Film und Fernsehen 

Paul-Ehrlich-Strasse 24 

6000 Frankfurt/M 

West Germany 

George Jetter 

Radio Television Beige (French) 

52 Boulevard August Reyer 

1040 Brussels 


Ben Klokman 
NOS/Dutch TV 
Postbus 10 
1200 JB Hilversum 
The Netherlands 

David Lachterman 

Radio Television Beige (French) 

52 Boulevard August Reyer 

1040 Brussels 


Klaus Lackshewitz 


8 Bertramstrasse 

D6000 Frankfurt am Main 

West Germany 

Guy Lehmann 
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kino 
Von Melle Park 17 
2000 Hamburg 13 
West Germany 

Poul Malmkjaer 
Danmarks Radio 
TV-Byen 2860 Soborg 

Claudia Munch 



Am Laufer Schlagturm 3 

8500 N urn berg 

West Germany 

Jose Maria Prado 

Filmoteca Nacional de Espana 



Alfonso Portocarrero 
Systema Nacional de Radio y 

Television Cultural 
Apartado 7-1980 
San Jose 
Costa Rica 

Harry Prins 


Heuvellaan 33 

Postbus 175-1200 AD 


The Netherlands 

Roland Probst 
Kino Betrieb 
Seilerstrasse 4 

Wilfried Reichart 
WDR/Westdeutsches Fernsehen 
Appellhofplatz 1 
5 Koln 1 
West Germany 

Efrain Sarria 

Filmoteca Nacional de Espana 

Madrid Spain 

Fernando Herrero 

Semana Internacional de Cine 

Juan de Juni 4 



Rainer Seik 
Polytel International 
810 Seventh Avenue 
New York, New York 
(212) 399-7806 

Richard Steimamm 

South African Broadcasting 

Henley Road 

2001 Johannesburg 

Republic of South Africa 

Nils Petter Sundgren 
SR 1 

Sveriges Radio 
S-105 Stockholm 

Elizabeth Sykes 
Polytel International 
810 Seventh Avenue 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 399-7806 

Theresa te Nyul 


Postbus 175-1200 AD 

Heuvellan 33 


The Netherlands 

Harald Vogel 

Janus Film und Fernsehen 

Paul-Ehrlich Strasse 24 

6000 Frankfurt/M 

West Germany 



Wolfram Weber 



Am Laufer Schlagturm 3 

8500 N urn berg 

West Germany 

Sharon Singer 


Dabara Films 

Suite 510 

55 Yonge Street 

Toronto, Ontario 


(416) 922-0490 

Nicole Jouve, Interama 
301 W. 53rd 
New York, New York 
(212) 977-4830 


THE HAUNTING OF M, Producer-Director: Anna Thomas, presented at the Second Annual Feature Film Market. 

Medio Clips 

This new column will be an ongoing part of our informa- 
tion resource center activity. Any members with perti- 
nent information are encouraged to make submissions. 
Contact John T. Rice at AIVF. 

PTV Funding Bill Update 

The 1980 election has shifted the balance of power in the 
House and Senate sub-committees on Communications. 
Lionel Van Deerlin, former chairman of the House sub- 
committee was defeated. In his place will most likely be Rep. 
Timothy Wirth (Dem.) of Colorado, one of the most pro- 
gressive members vis-a-vis Independents. Composition of the 
rest of the sub-committee will probably change drastically, 
and a new education campaign as to Independents increased 
participation in PTV will be necessary. The next PTV Funding 
Bill process will probably begin in May. On the Senate side, 
Sen. Barry Goldwater will most likely be the new conservative 
chairman of the Senate sub-committee. Expect a tough fight 
in the House-Senate conference, which will then send the 
compromise PTV Funding Bill language to Ronald Reagan. 
Good luck then. 

CSG Speech 

On November 11th, 1980, AIVF testified to the CPB Board on 
the need to revise the current community Service Grant 
eligibility and initiate local grants that are reserved for the ac- 
quisition and production of local (and Independent!) program- 
ming. AIVF was the only alternative group that brought to 
light PTV's dismal record which has encouraged a decrease in 
local programming. CPB Board, at their November meeting, 
was infuriated with what some characterized as a railroad by 
the stations to keep CPB's mitts off "their"money. The jury is 
out on whether CPB Board will make the courageous decision 
to build incentives toward increasing Independent program- 

CPB Drama Series 

The Program Fund of CPB has just released an Invitation for 
Proposals for their National Television Series. An allocation of 
2 million dollars for the 1981-82 Season will go to this regular 

The Program Fund is seeking proposals for productions of 
full-length dramas, not less than one hour in length and not 
longer than two hours. Scripts can be original or adaptations. 
Plays for the theatre, teleplays and film scenarios will all be 
considered. Each script must be complete in itself, telling a 
self-contained story. Primary consideration will be given to 
the quality of the writing and to its appropriateness for the 
television medium. Although the Program Fund is seeking 
material which has never been broadcast, certainly American 
classics can be submitted. 

No script should be submitted unless the rights have already 
been secured by the producer. No production will be funded 
unless the producer or the director can show evidence of past 
drama production experience. 

All submissions will be reviewed by teams of readers and will 
be evaluated by an advisory panel of experts. Final decisions 
will be made by the Director of the Program Fund. 

Deadlines for Production proposals is Jan. 30th, 1981. Money 
for Script development is also available. The deadline for 
Script development is April 24th, 1981. Contact Eloise Payne 
at 202-293-6160. 


Commercial (or Non-Commercial?) KQED Sued 

The Committee to Save KQED has filed a suit charging PTV 
Station KQED, San Francisco, with abdicating their non- 
commercial mandate. The station has drastically cut local pro- 
gramming but has ironically suggested to offer Pay TV on a 
subsidiary station. This suit is a well-prepared analysis of the 
dangers of PTV's recent flirtation with marketing and commer- 

For more information contact: 
Larry Hall — Committee to Save KQED 
7695 Crest Ave. 
Oakland, C.A. 94605 

CPBILow Power TV Station Guidebook 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has published 
a new guidebook on low power non-commercial television 

The guidebook has been prepared to assist individuals in- 
terested in applying for and operating a low power television 
station. It is not, however, meant to be a substitute for 
technical, financial, legal and engineering assistance. 

The Low Power Television Guidebook outlines for potential 
applicants information about channel availability, signal 
coverage, types of equipment, sources of funding and the ap- 
plication process. It is not a complete step-by-step guide to 
obtaining a low power television station license. Most ap- 
plicants will require the assistance of a consulting engineer 
and possibly a communications attorney in preparing an ap- 
plication and designing the station. 

Individuals interested in obtaining a copy of the Low Power 
Television Guidebook should contact CPB's Office of 
Telecommunication Policy and Administration. 

Access II: Handbook for Satellite Distribution 

The National Endowment for the Arts has recently completed 
an Independent Producers' Handbook of Satellite Communi- 
cations called ACCESS II. This handbook is a practical guide 
for independent producers interested in distributing to PTV, 
cable and commercial television and radio systems. It in- 
cludes descriptions of current satellite systems and networks, 
contact person information and background history of inde- 
pendents usage to date. This handbook is a must for any inde- 
pendent involved in self-distribution. 

Authors: Joseph D. Baken and David Chandler. NEA Pubica- 
tion Coordinator: Marion Dix. Copies are $3.00. 

Please send me 


an NEA publication, by Joseph D. 

Baken and David 

I would like 

copies. At $3.00 per copy I have 

enclosed a check or money order for $. 
My address is 

Make check or money order payable to: 

625 Broadway, New York NY 10012 




FOR SALE: 2 SONY AVC — 3450 
portable black and white cameras, like 
new. Best offer over $500.00. Call Gerry 
at (212) 757-4220. 

hollow prism, prefer N.Y.C. location, 
minimum 4 months, call (203) 927-4406. 


MUNICATIONS Video Access Center 
will run a series of portable video work- 
shops Wednesdays from 7:00 pm-10:00 
pm beginning Jan. 7, 1981. Tuition 
$25.00. For information call Gerry Pallor 
at (212) 757-4220. 

AVENUES, one day seminar focusing on 
important topics in screenwriting. 
January 17, 1981. Contact for informa- 
tion: AFI Seminar, Media Studies Pro- 
gram, New School for Social Research, 
N.Y., N.Y. 10011 (212) 741-8903. 

day seminars held in Chicago, Jan. 24, 
1981 and in Boston, Jan. 31, 1981. For in- 
formation contact: AFI Seminar, c/o 
Nancee Campbell, Mass Communica- 
tions, Emerson College, 148 Beacon St., 
Boston, Ma. 02116; (617) 262-2017 ext 
227 or AFI Seminar c/o Judy Dyke, 
Department of Film and Television, 
Columbia College, 600 S. Michigan Ave., 
Chicago, III. 60611; (312) 663-1600 ext 

will take place April 22-25 on the Ohio U. 
Campus in Athens, Ohio. The topic of 
this years conference is "Film History: 
Industry, Style, Ideology," For informa- 
tion contact: Stephen Andrews, Con- 
ference Coordinator, Ohio U. Film Con- 
ference, PO Box 388, Athens, Ohio 
45701, (614) 594-6888. 

COMMUNICATION sponsored by 
Temple University next April. Papers, 
proposals, or films related to theory and 
research in this field direct to: Dr. Sari 
Thomas, Dept. Radio/TV/Film, Temple 
U., Philadelphia, Pa. 19122, (215) 

THE MEDIA, White House mini media 
conference in N.Y.C. sponsored by the 
Gray Panthers Jan. 15-16, 1981. For In- 
formation call Lydia Bragger (212) 
870-2715 or Barbara Cox (215) 844-1300. 


will be held March 5-7, 1981 accepting 
16mm and super 8 films, 35 minutes or 
less. Entry deadline Feb. 15. For infor- 
mation contact: SFAI Film Festival, 
Attn. Don Lloyd, 800 Chestnut St., San 
Francisco, Ca. 94133. 

April 6-10, 1981. Open to 16mm and 
super 8 films, cash prizes. For info and 
entry form write: Ellen LaForge, Mason 
Gross Film Festival Walters Hall — 
Douglas Campus, New Brunswick, N.J. 

VIDEO FESTIVAL non commercial in- 
dependently produced in Florida or by a 
Florida resident films. Deadline for entry 
Jan. 26, 1981. Festival date is March 6-8, 
1981. For information contact: Diane 
Howe Eberly, FIFVF Arts Council of 
Tampa-Hillsborough County, 812 N. 
Florida Ave. Suite 256, Tampa, Florida 

April 2-18 and will include features, 
documentaries, shorts, animation, 
student work, experimental and super 
8mm films. The deadline for entry is 
Dec. 31, 1980. Entry forms and regula- 
tions are available from: FILMEX, 6230 
Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, Ca. 90028 (213) 

ASSOCIATION (EFLA) is now accepting 
entries for its 23rd Annual Film Festival. 
The festival will be held in N.Y.C. from 
June 1-6, 1981. The festival is an impor- 
tant showcase for 16mm films for use in 
libraries, schools, museums, and other 
community groups. 1981 marks the 
introduction of video in the festival 
competition. Regulations and entry 
forms may be obtained from: EFLA, 43 
West 61st St., N.Y., N.Y. 10023 (212) 
246-4533. Deadline for receipt of entry 
forms Jan. 15, 1981: for films or video 
tapes Feb. 13, 1981. 

is sponsoring a film/video festival at the 
William Penn Museum, Harrisberg, Pa., 
January 23-25, 1981. 

FILMMAKERS (several independent 
filmmakers) are renting a market booth 
for the Berlin Film Festival. If you ex- 
pect to attend and wish to participate in 
the booth contact: Jon Jost and Alicia 

Wille c/o Rees-Mogg, 50 Elsynge Rd., 
London SW 18, England. 

Tampere Film Festival will be held Feb. 
4-8, 1981. Short films, entry forms, and 
prints must be sent by Jan. 5, 1981. For 
more information contact: Tampere Film 
Festival, P.O. Box 305, SF 33101 
Tampere 10, Finland. 

5-8, 1981 is open to 16mm films. The 
deadline for entries is Jan. 30, 1981. 
Cash prizes. Please contact: Depart- 
ment of cinema and photography, 
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 
III. 62901, (618)453-2365. 

FILM FESTIVAL will be held in Annecy, 
France in June 1981. Entry deadline is in 
January. For information write: 21 Rue 
de La Tour D'Auvergne 75009, Paris, 

sponsored by the Audubon Society. 
Awards in seven categories: Conserva- 
tion/Ecology, Nature/Wildlife, Energy, 
Polution, Population, Land and Water 
Resources and Global Issues. $35.00 en- 
try fee. Entry deadline March 16, 1981. 
Inquiries should be mailed to Jennifer 
Jarrett, Film and Media Services, 
National Audobon Society, 950 Third 
Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10022. 

take place in Lille and in the Region 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais, March 3-8, 1981. 
Films and application are due Jan. 15, 
1981. Mail to International Short and 
Documentary Film Festival, 3 rue 
Washington, 75008 Paris, France. 

(ACT) is accepting tapes and applica- 
tions for its 1980's "Achievement in 
Children's Television Awards." $40.00 
entry fee. %" video tapes must be 
received no later than Feb. 1, 1981. Mail 
to: ACT, 46 Austin St., Newtonville, 
Mass. 02160 or call (617) 527-7870. 

ville, Florida held April 10, 1981. Film 
and video categories: Entertainment, 
Contemporary or Human Concerns, In- 
structional or Informational Innovations 
(subject or technique) and Childrens. 
Entry deadline: Feb. 14, 1981. Must be a 
Florida resident to apply. For informa- 
tion contact: Jeff Driggers, Jacksonville 
Film Festival, Haydon Burns Library, 122 
N. Ocean St., Jacksonville, Florida. 


FESTIVAL 1981 competition open to 
16mm films made in the last two years. 
Entry forms due March 1, 1981. Informa- 
tion available from: BIFF — 12, 516 
North Charles St. — Rm. 405B, 
Baltimore, Md. 21201, (301) 685-4170. 


FILM OASIS is interested in previewing 
works by independents for screenings. 
Send films and a self addressed 
envelope to Arlene Zeichner — Program 
Coordinator, Los Angeles Independent 
Film Oasis, 2020 South Robertson Blvd., 
L.A., Ca. 90034. 

FIVF requests independents to send 
synopses, credits, brochures, and other 
publicity materials for an open file of 
films. Mail to Leslie Tonkonow, FIVF 
Festivals, 625 Broadway — 9th fl., N.Y., 
N.Y. 10012. 

TION FIRST NIGHT presentation of 
short tapes (under 10 minutes) rental fee 
is $6.00/minute. For information call 
BF/VF (617) 536-1540 or Betsy Connors 
(617) 623-0578. 


mental Television Center in Owego, N.Y. 
for video artists working in the area of 
electronic image processing. Applica- 
tion deadline for 2-5 day residencies 
Jan. 23, 1981. For information contact 
Experimental Television Center LTD., 
180 Front St., Owego, N.Y. 13827 or call 
(607) 687-1423. 

CRISIS TO CRISIS Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting invites Public Tele- 
vision Stations and Independent Pro- 
ducers to submit proposals for single 
length programs 60-90 minutes in 
length. For information call Eloise 
Payne at CPB (202) 293-6160. 

plication deadline. Feb. 2, 1981. For in- 
formation residents of N.Y. contact 
John Wessel, 110 West 15th St., N.Y., 
N.Y. 10011, (212) 989-6347, outside N.Y. 
contact Visual Arts Program, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington 
D.C. 20506, (202) 634-6300. 

able to beginning Hispanic film and 
video producers in amounts up to 
$2,000.00. Contact: Oblate College of 
the Southwest, 285 Oblate Dr., San 
Antonio, Tx. 78216. 

FILM AND VIDEO from the University 
Film Association. For information write 
to: Robert E. Davis, Dept. of Radio/T.V./ 
Film, University of Texas, Austin, Tx. 

NEH PROJECTS grant proposals and 
application deadlines 1/8/81 and 7/1/81. 
Contact to verify appropriateness of 
suggested proposal. Guidelines avail- 
able from National Endowment for 
Humanities, 806 Fifteenth St., 
Washington D.C. 20506, (202) 724-0318. 

SERIES: Round 2 proposals are due 
March 13, 1981. For information contact: 
Mary Scieford — Instructional Televi- 
sion Project Officer, CBP, 1111 16th St., 
Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 293-6160. 


EDITOR for anthropological, 
socialogical documentary film on 
highland Indian village in Guatemala. 
Knowledge of Spanish prefered. 
Salaried. To begin Jan-Feb 1981. Call 
(212) 228-5108. 

AVAILABLE, contact: Hope Millington, 
78 Jane St., N.Y., N.Y. 10014 (212) 
741-3329 or 943-0720. 

to collaborate on challenging film proj- 
ect (any capacity) Ina Stone, 317 W. 87th 
St., N.Y., N.Y. 10024, (212) 877-9623. 


TRICKFILM/CHICAGO 80 is a survey of 
Independent Animation, available for 
$5.00 from The Film Center, Art Institute 
of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60603. 


2 E 


c .— 




n u 









hip is i 

1 — 








leek to: 
ew York, 







ar meml 
when c 






: regul; 
ent in i 
to you 

<D o 







' work 

C/D O 












to re 

ail with 



. CD "O 
>M fl) 
"D >- CO 



CO O 3 

^ 2 







ve it aire 
volved in 
FILE: is 














don't ha 
those in' 







_q 03 
- Q. 


en cu 

.E ro 

C "D 

<D CD 

E 5 

CO T3 


. en 

a> co 


"O sz 

*-■ o 

CO !_ 

E ° 

i S 

CO <D 

£ O 

O w 

5 >< 

— co 

C 3 


O > 


!Z a. 

CO M- 

o — 

^ o 

cd y. co 

en <2 cd 

CO —1 T3 










d I HSd3a IAI3 W 


■< n 
O m 
c S 

H m 

> z 

T> m 

m n 


m H 
Z rn 


m O 



O m 

z £ 


f- O 



> < 


i- ID 

Z O 


m _ 
c/> z 


















= 3 

O 3 

1 0) 03 

O » 


















, 3 

£ p 




d a n a n □ □ 

c= o. ~o 

i s' §. 

=5 2. C 

O O 

~ ' CD 

cd a> 

Q. O 

7+ c: 

2 3 


° 5 


3 c7 
SL 3 


CD ° >f 

CO 3- 5. 




o Sii 

D D 

— 1 










































D - 














n n| 

£ s. o 









n n n n □ n s 


• roo 

ro _ 







as $ 

° " S 
as <n < 




2. o — 

c CD Q. 


CD Jf 

(A CD 



Z c 

to "O 

°- o 

1 5 

i I 

o 3 

O 0) 
n O 

• i 

o I 


CD -i 

</> W 

• — 

O O 

2 ® 

— w 

a cd 

s s 



"° z 

2 if 

0) . 

3 * 


^' < 

"° S 3 

z S 

sq 5 


> H 

O O 

(» -< 
CO • 

m 3 


Volume 3 l\l- 


1 : 


I Independent: 


THE INDEPENDENT is published 10 times yearly by the Foun- 
dation for Independent Video and Film, Inc., 625 Broadway, 
9th Floor, NY, NY 10012, with support from the New York 
State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Arts, A federal agency. Subscription is included in member- 
ship to the organization. 

Editor: Bill Jones 
Assistant Editor: Fran Piatt 
Contributing Editors: Mitchell W. Block 

Dee Dee Halleck 

Sol Rubin 

John Rice 
Layout & Design: Bill Jones 
Typesetting: Compositype Studio 

STAFF MEMBERS: Lawrence Sapadin, Executive Director; 
Leslie Tonkonow, Assistant Director; Alan Mitosky, Short Film 
Showcase Project Administrator; Louise Zimmerman, Short Film 
Showcase Administrative Assistant; John Rice, Media Awareness 
Project Director. 

The viewpoints expressed herein are not intended to reflect 
the opinion of the Board of Directors — they are as diversified 
as our member and staff contributors. 

BUSINESS By Mitchell Block 3 

by James Roman 

WILLIAM GREAVES Interviewed 8 

by Lillian Jimenez 







Here presented are the founding principles of the AIVF, followed by new resolutions that were approved by vote last April of the entire membership, at the same time the 
Board of Directors were elected. 

Since the addition of any new resolutions constitutes a by-law change, the consent of the membership was required. 


Be it resolved, that the following five adopted as the Principles of the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, Inc. 


1. The Association is a service organization of and for independent video and 

2. The Association encourages excellence, committment, and independence; it 
stands for the principle that video and filmmaking is more than just a job — that it 
goes beyond economics to involve the expression of broad human values. 

3. The Association works, through the combined effort of the membership, to 
provide practical, informational, and moral support for independent video and film- 
makers and is dedicated to insuring the survival and providing support for the con- 
tinuing growth of independent video and filmmaking. 

4. The Association does not limit its support to one genre, ideology, or 
aesthetic, but furthers diversity of vision in artistic and social consciousness. 

5. The Association champions independent video and film as valuable and vital 
expressions of our culture and is determined, by mutual action, to open pathways 
toward exhibition of this work to the community at large. 

The AIVF resolves: 

1. To affirm the creative use of media in fostering cooperation, community, 
justice in human relationships and respect of age, sex, race, class or religion. 

2. To recognize and reaffirm the freedom of expression of the independent film 
and video maker, as spelled out in the AIVF principles. 

3. To promote constructive dialogue and heightened awareness among the 
membership of the social, artistic, and personal choices involved in the pursuit of 
both independent and sponsored work, via such mechanisms as screenings and 

4. To continue to work to strengthen AlVF's services to independents, in order 
to help reduce the membership's dependence on the kinds of sponsorship which 
encourages the compromise of personal values. 

BOARD MEETINGS are held monthly at AIVF, 625 Broadway, 9th Floor and are 
open to the public. The AIVF/FIVF Board of Directors encourages active member- 
ship participation and welcomes discussion of important issues. In order to be on 
the agenda contact Jack Willis, chairperson, two weeks in advance of meeting at 
(212) 921-7020. 

The next two meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, MARCH 3) APRIL 7 

Both will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. Dates and times, however, are subject to last 

minute changes, so please call (212) 473-3400 to confirm. 

AIVF/FIVF BOARD MEMBERS: Executive Committee — Eric Breitbart, Treas- 
urer; Pablo Figueroa; Dee Dee Halleck; Lawrence Sapadin, Ex Officio. Stew 
Bird; Robert Gardner, Vice-President; Alan Jacobs, Kathy Kline, Secretary; 
Jessie Maple; Kitty Morgan; Jane Morrison, President; Marc Weiss; Jack Willis, 


D¥©MIL!L Wo ©L@©C€ 

The Association of Independent Distributors — A.I.D. 

As first reported in this column over the summer, The 
Association of Independent Distributors had their first 
meeting at the 1980 American Film Festival in New 
York. The meeting hosted by Debra Franco (New Day 
Films), Laura Shuster (Appleshop) and Mitchell Block 
(Direct Cinema Limited) invited all self-distributors and 
small distributors participating at the American Film 
Festival to an informal get-together to talk about how 
small companies could work together to better self- 
distribute or distribute independent films. It was agreed 
at the meeting that the first step would be a directory. 
The first step has been accomplished. 

Ben Achtenberg of Plainsong Productions (47 Halifax 
Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass. 02130 (617) 524-3982) com- 
plied the first directory. This was accomplished by 
sending all of the participants of the New York meeting 
a form letter asking for information. The material was 
reformated by Achtenberg into a highly useful directory 
of independent self-distributors and small distributors. 
This directory is now available from Achtenberg for 
$5.00 (postage and handling fee paid). This directory is 
useful for a number of reasons: 

1. It provides a listing of many self-distributors who are 
independent filmmakers with new films/tapes to con- 
tact to do joint mailings when they find a company/ 
individual with a similar film(s). 

2. It lists a number of small distributors that indepen- 
dent filmmakers might contact to ask if they would 
be interested in distributing their film/tape. 

3. As a resource guide it provides information about 
numerous filmmamers and small distributors to con- 
tact for information on distribution. 

It is likely that the guide will be bigger and more com- 
plete next time it is published. 

A.I.D. has fostered a number of local meetings of self 
and small distributors. Most notably in the Boston area 
which has a monthly group meeting. (Contact 
Achtenberg) and the Los Angeles group continues to 
meet (Contact Block (213) 656-4700). The purpose of 
these meetings is to share information and find areas 
to work together for example, sharing advertising, 
festival tables, mailings, mailing lists, etc. It is hoped 
that more regional groups can get together to share in- 
formation and ideas on distribution. 


A.I.D. will have a regional meeting at the Mid-West Film 
Conference. For more information, contact Block. 


The Association for Educational Communications and 
Technology has been around for about 50 years. It 
represents 16,000 members and has been providing the 
education and training community with leadership and 
direction in the use of media and technology for learn- 
ing. A.E.C.T. sponsors an annual convention that moves 
from city to city. This year its convention will be held in 
Philadelphia and runs from April 6 to April 10. At the 
1980 Convention total registration was 6,012, 226 com- 
panies filled 371 exhibition booths. Few of the small in- 
dependent distributors have participated at A.E.C.T. 
conventions or have taken exhibition space. The reason 
is simple, cost. The cheapest booth at the 1981 conven- 
tion will be $665.00. Historically, the large non- 
theatrical distributors have taken one or more booths. 
Companies like ABC, BFA, Churchill, Disney, and so on 
have used the A.E.C.T. as a major customer contact 
point. Considering 49% of the A.E.C.T. registrants (in 
1980) were Media/AV Directors/Supervisors/Specialist, 
about 3,000 people, the convention is a good place to 
touch base with high school and college (as well as 
library) film buyers. 

In talking with A.E.C.T. it was discovered that they were 
unaware of the large number of small distributors who 
are shut out of the A.E.C.T. convention because of the 
high cost of exhibition. The exciting news is that 
A.E.C.T. will permit independent filmmakers and 
distributors to share space. Since the standard booth is 
10 by 10 feet it is possible for 2 or more small 
distributors to share the booth. A.E.C.T. will list each 
company that exhibits, provide a computerized listing 
of all delegates who made inquiries at your booth, and a 
listing of all delegates who made inquiries at your 
booth, and a listing of names and addresses of all 
those who registered for the 1981 Convention. Now it is 
possible for small companies to attend A.E.C.T. for one- 
half (plus $50.00) or one-third (plus $50.00) of their 
registration fee! For more information, contact Richard 
Niback at A.E.C.T., 1126 Sixteenth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-4180. 

Programming for 
Public Television 

By James Roman 

Trends in corporate underwriting and national 
distribution and production for public TV programming 
show decline in local input and influence. 

The environment for public debate about public televi- 
sion has encompassed a wide variety of government 
bodies and public constituencies. Congress, private 
commissions, independent producers, media critics, 
corporate underwriters, the FCC, and disgruntled 
citizen advocate groups all have been involved. Mis- 
management, underwriting abuses, declining public 
service, and over-commercialization have all at one time 
or another been alleged by one or more of these 
groups. This article will address some of these critical 
issues and attempt to identify various trends in three 
programming areas — corporate underwriting, program 
distribution, and program production. 

While the principle in general is endorsed, corporate 

underwriting of public television programming 

has still been the subject of some concern. 

The concern, as expressed by the Carnegie II report, is 
the possible loss of a licensee's editorial freedom and 
programming autonomy because of underwriter in- 
fluence. Figures on the amounts of corporate under- 
writing are available for the programs distributed by the 
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Although theoret- 
ically local stations have the option to broadcast, tape, 
or ignore the PBS feed, more than 70 percent of an 
average public television station's programming comes 
from PBS. Therefore, corporate underwriting on nation- 
ally distributed PBS programs certainly deserves closer 

In 1975 PBS distributed 1367 original broadcast hours 
(those new to TV, exclusive of repeats) with a total 
funding base of $49.7 million. That year corporations 
contributed $12.4 million, which marked a significant 
increase in corporate underwriting for PBS-distributed 
programs. This figure also amounted to one-fourth of 
the total dollars contributed to PBS programming in 
1975, outranking the federal government, which 
through various agencies (including the National En- 
dowment for the Humanities, HEW, and the Office of 
Education) contributed $10.1 million, and it almost 
equaled the funds raised by licensees. Of the $12.4 
million contributed by corporations, $5.8 million came 
from three oil companies: Mobil, Exxon, and Atlantic 

In fiscal year 1976 corporations contributed $13.9 
million, again approximately one-fourth of all program 

contributions made to PBS programming, and of this 
amount $10.6 million was provided by oil companies. 
Agencies of the federal government provided $14.1 
million in funding. 

In 1977 PBS programming was funded with $67.4 
million (4, p. 4). Corporations ($14.5 million or 21.5 per- 
cent) and the federal government ($19.3 million or 28.5 
percent) together accounted for half this funding, with 
the other half being supplied by the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting (CPB), subscriptions, foundations, 
the licensees, and other sources, none of which sur- 
pass the individual levels of either the corporations or 
the federal government. Of the $14.5 million supplied 
by corporations in 1977, $8.2 million or 57.5 percent 
was contributed by oil companies. 

Table I shows a steady increase in corporate funding 
for PBS television programming. The total dollar figure 
has grown 488 percent from fiscal year 1973 to fiscal 
year 1978. There was a slight decrease in program 
underwriting by oil companies during 1977. This drop 
may reflect two things: first, a decrease in "original 
hours" broadcast by PBS in 1977 and second, the fluc- 
tuation of underwriting policies from one year to the 
next as companies review and choose programs for 
underwriting. Nonetheless, the increase in oil company 
contributions remains much more dramatic over the 
period covered by Table I than does the increase in 
other company contributions. 

PBS corporate underwriting in fiscal year 1977 ex- 
hibited several interesting trends. Of 996 prime-time 
(defined as from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m.) original broadcast 
hours distributed via the PBS interconnection, 433 
hours (44 percent) were either wholly or partially under- 
written by corporations. The remaining 563 hours were 
supported by agencies of the federal government, CPB, 
licensees, or foundations. Oil companies accounted for 
the bulk of prime-time PBS corporate hours, under- 
writing 314 hours (72.5 percent) of all such program- 

Corporate underwriters on PBS have also exhibited a 
preference for "cultural" programs. In fiscal years 1977 
and 1978, corporations contributed $9.6 million and 
$12.5 million respectively toward the support of cultural 
programming. It is significant that from 1975 to 1978 
corporations have consistently contributed more than 
any other funding source for the support of PBS 
cultural programs. 


Table 1: 

Corporate funding for programs distributed by PBS, 
fiscal years 1973-1978 (in $ millions) 

Total Total PBS 

Oil companies Other companies corporate funding program funding 































Source: (4, p. 6). 

Note: Data for the first three categories are unavailable for 1974. 

In addition to favoring cultural programs over others, 

corporations also show a preference for underwriting 

prime-time programs produced or acquired for PBS 

distribution by certain stations. 

For example, in fiscal year 1977, 75 percent of prime- 
time PBS corporate underwriting went to only four sta- 
tions, three of them located in the east: WNET (New 
York), WGBH (Boston), and WETA (Washington, D.C.). In 
fiscal year 1977 WNET received corporate underwriting 
for approximately 141 hours of prime-time PBS pro- 
gramming, 103 of which were either partially or wholly 
funded by oil companies. WGBH, the next most favored 
station, received corporate funding for 104 prime-time 
PBS hours, with oil companies funding 68 of these 
hours. WETA, the third eastern station, received cor- 
porate underwriting for 62 hours of prime-time program- 
ming, all of which came from oil corporations. KCET in 
Los Angeles was the only non-eastern station to 
receive significant corporate funding. Of its 16 prime- 
time corporate underwritten PBS hours of program- 
ming, none was provided by oil companies. 1 

With the definite trend toward prime-time corporate 
underwriting on large production-oriented stations, it is 
not surprising that more than half (55 percent) of prime- 
time PBS programming emanated from the three 
eastern stations in fiscal year 1977, mostly from WNET 
and WGBH. This trend continued through the first 
quarter of fiscal year 1978 during which 23 percent of 
PBS prime-time programming received corporate under- 
writing, with oil companies accounting for 14 percent. 
During this quarter WNET received 31 percent of cor- 
porate support and WGBH 28 percent. 

Along with a preference for cultural programming and 
particular stations, corporations also exhibit a 
preference for foreign-produced programming. Slightly 
over 14 percent of the fall 1976 PBS prime-time national 
schedule consisted of foreign programming. By the 
spring of 1977 this figure had increased to 23.3 percent, 
with the number of hours spent airing corporate under- 
written prime-time foreign programs increasing from 
102 hours in fall 1976 to 158.6 hours in spring 1977. 
These hours comprised 94 percent of all foreign pro- 
gramming presented by PBS (7). Corporate sponsors 
desire foreign-produced programs chiefly because of 
their relative inexpensiveness. For example, three 
million dollars might be spent by a corporation to pur- 
chase a series already produced and televised in 

Britain. If that same series were produced in America, 
the cost could be as high as $37 million. 

Table 2 provides a breakdown of foreign programming 
material by title, type, station, underwriter, and length. 
As can be seen, about 80 percent of the underwritten 
broadcast hours for the foreign programs are funded by 
Exxon and Mobil. In addition, the stations which ac- 
quired these programs were two of the favored sta- 
tions, WNET and WBGH. Furthermore, all but one of 
the programs can be called cultural programs. Overall, 
then, the data reveal that corporate underwriters in- 
dicate preference for cultural programs and programs 
produced or acquired by large production-oriented PBS 

Table 2: 

Number of foreign-produced prime-time minutes 
underwritten by corporations for fiscal year 1977 PBS distribution 


"America's Last King" 
"Chester Mystery Plays' 
"Masterpiece Theatre" 
"The Pallisers" 
"Picadilly Circus" 
"PBS Movie Theater" 
"Tell Me IF Anything 
Ever Was Done" 



















Underwriter Length (min. 













(158.6 hours) 

The reliance on PBS as the primary program source 

has also raised concern about the autonomy of 

local public broadcasters and the fate of locally 

produced programming. 

A CPB report on fiscal year 1978 shows that PBS sup- 
plied an average of 3504 hours per broadcaster, or 71.6 
percent of all programs hours (see 1). PBS-distributed 
programs made up the bulk of the public TV broad- 
casters' prime-time schedule, accounting for 78.5 per- 
cent of all prime-time hours. Indeed, sixteen PBS 
distributed series accounted for over 42 percent of all 
public television air time. 

Historically, public television licensees have always 
been concerned about autonomy and the threat of net- 
working to their independence. Prior to 1967 and the in- 
corporation of PBS, the public television licensees 
were extremely suspicious of National Educational 
Television (NET) and its programs. This distrust peaked 
in the late 1960s when the licensees rejected NET as 
the agency of interconnection and adopted the CPB/ 
Ford recommendation for the formation of PBS. 
Ironically, PBS has assumed the very dominance which 
sparked its creation. Indeed, this dominance parallels 
the commercial television environment in which net- 
works control the majority of the programming dis- 
tributed by commercial television stations. 

A similar trend can be seen in the distribution of pro- 
gram production. Public television stations produced 
61.7 percent of all hours broadcast by public television 
in fiscal year 1978. Production, however, was limited to 


several large stations including WNET, WGBH, MCET, 
and WETA, and other public TV organizations such as 
Family Communications ("Mister Rogers") and 
Southern Education Communications Association. The 
other leading production company is Children's Televi- 
sion Workshop, which is responsible for 16.1 percent of 
the 1978 air time. In fiscal year 1978 independent pro- 
ductions accounted for only 5.3 percent of total broad- 
cast hours. In addition, the frequency of foreign/co- 
productions has increased from 5.8 percent of total 
broadcast hours in 1974 to 9.1 percent in 1978. 

This distribution leaves locally produced programs with 
a very small share — only 7.7 percent. According to the 
1978 CPB report, the trend is likely to be a continued 
decrease in their number. Most of the locally produced 
programs were news and/or public affairs. But it is 
significant that the majority of news and public affairs 
programs were produced by major public television 
organizations and were national in scope. An in- 
teresting irony revealed in the report is that out of a 
category of 15 locally produced programming formats, 
promotions and auctions rated sixth highest in frequen- 
cy of local production. 

A recent study showed that this declining trend in 
locally produced programs was of concern to those 
who watched public television. A significant portion of 
public television viewers surveyed indicated that there 
is too little locally produced programming on public 
television (2, p. 39). They were particularly concerned 
about receiving more features treating local and state 
issues in various formats, including the documentary. 
Similarly, one of the reasons respondents used to 
argue against public television was that there were "too 
many British shows" (2, p. 43). 

The statistical data on television production reveal that 
several entities have carved out dominant spheres of in- 
fluence. Children's Television Workshop (the producers 
of "Electric Company" and "Sesame Street"), which 
supplied 16.1 percent of all air time in fiscal year 1978, 
accounts for almost half of the approximately 35 per- 
cent of all public TV air time that is for children. CTW 
enjoys a great deal of prestige as a children's program 
producer; yet is has not produced a significant amount 
of new material for either series in several years. Other 
discrete target populations have also been identified by 
public broadcasters and include the elderly, hearing- 
impaired, women, blacks, hispanics, and other ethnical- 
ly identifiable groups. In fiscal year 1978, 8.7 percent of 
all hours were devoted to target audience programs, a 
slight increase over 1976. Table 3 shows target 
audience categories, programs, and national hours 
broadcast for each category and series. As can be seen, 
eight nationally televised series clearly dominante the 
various target audience categories, and in most cases, 
a single series identifies the PBs commitment to a 
target population. One must also remember that the 
data apply to programs broadcast in fiscal year 1978 
and that several of these programs have been discon- 

Table 3: 

Series and non-series broadcast hours devoted to various 
public television target audiences during fiscal year 1978 

No. of hrs. 

No. of hrs. 







Target audience 



to category 

to category 








"Black Perspective on 





"Villa Alegre," 
"Que Pasa USA" 





"Captioned Delay 
ABC News" 





"Over Easy," 
"Images of Aging" 








The role of the Station Program Cooperative is a 
pivotal element in analyzing the role of PBS. 

In 1978, sixteen PBS-distributed series accounted for 
over 42 percent of ail public television air time. The 
majority of these sixteen series were chosen by the 
membership via the Station Program Cooperative (SPC). 
The SPC is a system by which stations bid on series 
and, if aggregate bidding is sufficient, the series are 
purchased. Purchases made in the SPC accounted for 
66.1 percent of the hours distributed by PBS and 46.6 
percent of all public TV broadcast hours. 

Questions have been raised about the criteria station 
personnel use to make selections and about whose 
preferences these choices reflect — those of manage- 
ment, audience, or government. A trend that has been 
identified for SPC purchases is that stations tend to 
prefer inexpensive, cost-efficient series, non- 
controversial programs, and series or programs that 
have previously appeared on foreign or domestic televi- 
sion (5). Some of these variables surfaced during the 
1980 SPC market. For example, "World," a weekly 
documentary series and recent winner of a Peabody 
award, failed to be re-purchased for next season by PBS 
stations participating in the SPC. Some segments of 
"World" addressed unpopular themes such as racism 
and Marxist philosophy, and several producers have in- 
dicated that the resulting controversy led to the 
negative response by stations. 

There is evidence that some of these issues have been 
recognized by those in the public broadcasting system. 
In response to the Carnegie II recommendations, both 
CPB and PBs have restructured their organizations. 
CPB split into two segments, an administrative division 
and a program fund. The program fund, headed by 
Lewis Freedman, has at its disposal $25.7 million for 
fiscal year 1981. The fund will seek to appeal to a wider 
potential audience while producing innovative, exciting, 
and controversial programming. Priorities for funding 
have been identified for five groups, including children, 
the family, women, and minorities (3, p. 4). A substantial 
portion of the Fund's revenue has been committed to 
support independent producers. 

Progra mming 

PBS has also formulated a new posture, and has divided 
into three discrete semi-autonomous programming ser- 
vices.* PBS I will conform to the programming priorities 
that presently exist. PBS II will be more regional in 
scope, and PBS III will offer an instructional service. The 
regional service could provide access for less visible en- 
tities and generate more local programming. 

Evolving technology may alter the priorities of the 
public television environment in the years to come. PBS 
President Larry Grossman is presently working on a 
plan to interface the new technology (cable, subscrip- 
tion TV, satellite-to-home TV, videocassettes, video- 
discs) with public TV to broaden its funding base. A 
report released in May of 1980 by the Carnegie Corpora- 
tion supports public television's quest for alternative 
modes of distribution and suggests the creation of an 
alternative non-profit public television pay-cable perfor- 
mance channel — the Performing Arts Cultural Enter- 
tainment network (PACE). 

Another benefit from the new technology could be 
greater access and more accountability. Early in 1980 a 
consortium of independent producers called the Public 
Interest Video Network requested time on a PBS 
satellite transponder and, by-passing the PBS 
bureaucracy, distributed their live program to several 
public television stations around the country. With the 
new technology such "narrowcasting" can become a 
reality. Perhaps these developments will provide the in- 
centive for public television to realize a more diverse, 
innovative, and responsive television service for the 
public it is intended to serve. 


1. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "Public Television Program- 
ming Content by Category, Fiscal Year 1978." Washington, D.C, 
November 1979. 

2. Peter D. Hart Research Associates. "A Survey of Attitudes Toward 
Public Television." Washington, D.C, November 1979. 

3. "Program Fund: Excellence and Diversity in Programming." CPB 
Report, April 14, 1980. 

4. Public Broadcasting Service Research Department. Hours and 
Funding of Programs Distributed by PBS for Original Broadcast, 
Fiscal Year 1977. Washington, D.C, March 1978. 

5. Reeves, Michael G. and Tom Hoffer. "The Safe, Cheap and Known: A 
Content Analysis of the First (1974) PBS Program Cooperative." 
Journal of Broadcasting 20(4), Fall 1976. 

James Roman is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communica- 
tions at Hunter College of the City University of New York. 

- KCET's prime-time corporate underwriters include Hoffman La 
Roche, IBM, Mrs. Paul's Kitchens, and E. F. Hutton. 

Our thanks to the Annenberg Journal of Communica- 
tion for allowing us to reprint James Roman's highly 
informative article. 


ICAP — Independent Cinema Artists & Producers — 
announces its 1981 Acquisition Drive. A recognized 
leader in the distribution and packaging of independent 
film and video productions for the cable and public 
television markets, ICAP seeks to expand its inventory 
with quality productions of different genres, topic areas 
and running times. To fulfill the programming needs of 
cable and public television systems and create its own 
series formats, ICAP is seeking finished works on: 

Arts and Performance (dance, music, visuals, 

Children's Shorts (live-action or animated) 

Original Drama 

American Lifestyles 

Sports & Leisure 

Working in America 

Topical Social Issues 

Ethnic or Personality Portraits 

Live-Action or Animated Shorts (3-15 minutes) 

Independent Features (over 75 minutes) 

ICAP offers a non-exclusive contract and returns 75% 
of the sales revenue to the producer. ICAP is in contact 
with all existing and planned cable and public tele- 
vision outlets. For more information, or to submit 
16mm print or %" cassettes, please send description/ 
promotional material of your work to: ICAP, 625 Broad- 
way, New York, N.Y. 10012. 

Media Centers: Include in your next Newsletter. 

The Independent Feature Project and the New Ex- 
hibition Services of the American Film Institute 
are co-sponsoring a Showcase of the New 
American Cinema in 1981. Showcase sites will be 
Washington DC, Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston 
and San Francisco. The feature length documen- 
tary & fiction films (75+ minutes) included in 
each city's Showcase will be selected by program- 
mers from a film organization in that city. The IFP 
is now preparing a call for films, to be screened 
for selection at the end of March. For more infor- 
mation write Independent Feature Project, 80 E. 
11th St., N.Y. N.Y. 10003 (212-674-6655). 

Jpr ^m 



WvCcWfv Q/\CA\/€4 

by Lillian Jimenez 

/ interviewed William Greaves because he is probably 
the most prolific Black Independent Producer in the 
country today. He has produced over 200 documen- 
taries, has won over forty international film festival 
awards, has won an Emmy as Executive Producer for 
BLACK JOURNAL (the former WNET television show), 
and received four other Emmy nominations. An entire 
evening was devoted to the screening of Greaves' films 
at the recent Paris Film Festival of Black American 
Independent Filmmakers. On February 27th, the entire 
festival will be shown at Joseph Papp's Public Theatre. 
As was the case in Paris, an entire evening at the Public 
Theatre will be devoted to the films of William Greaves. 

He currently teaches acting for film and television at 
the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute and has occasion- 
ally substituted for Lee Strasberg at the Actors Studio. 
In February, 19Q0, he was inducted into the Black Film- 


makers Hall of Fame and is currently Executive Pro- 
ducer on a feature film (for Universal Pictures), starring 
Richard Pry or, Cicely Tyson and Vincent Price. 

Whenever I'm critical of the racial stereotypes that con- 
tinue to be perpetuated by the media industry in this 
country, I'm constantly told that "this dilemma still 
exists because there just aren't enough qualified Third 
World filmmakers". Certainly William Greaves and 
others disprove this assertion. Because of series like 
BRONX (Time and Life Productions) and CHARLIE 
CHAN (Zoetrobe) which continue to foster negative 
images of Third World people, more pressure must be 
brought to bear on the industry so that talented, 
qualified Third World filmmakers get an opportunity to 
remedy this deplorable situation. 

Lillian Jimenez 


I was born a poor Black boy. I grew up in Harlem on 
135th Street and Lenox Avenue. I was a little ragamuffin 
and a Harlem hoodlum — if that helps anybody. 

LJ: What do you mean by Harlem hoodlum? 

WG: People always assume that if you were from 
Harlem or the South Bronx that you're into all kinds of 
scenes. I did belong to a group called Panthers, which 
was not the political Panthers of the 60's, but another 
group. It was a very beautiful group of kids, a club. I 
also grew up in the South Bronx. Do you know Dawson 
Street and Prospect Avenue? That used to be my turf 
too. I think that they are marvelous areas, because if 
you can thread your way through all the problems and 
pressures that are laid on people of those areas by the 
larger society, you had a good training in living. And I 
must say that my happiest moments were spent in 
those environments. It wasn't until I finally left that I 
realized how terrible they were supposed to be. 

LJ: But when you say that you were brought up in 
those areas, you're talking about a specific time period. 
What were the years, decades you were living there? 

WG: Well, in the thirties, forties. 

LJ: What I keep thinking about is that I grew up on 
134th Street between Amsterdam and Broadway, which 
is not that far from where you grew up. When I was a 
very little girl the neighborhood was pretty good. Even 
when we went to 125th Street, it didn't look quite as 
bad as it does now. 

There wasn't the influx of drugs. At least in my mind as 
a child, I didn't see a lot of that. I'm thinking that when 
you were raised in those areas, even in the South 
Bronx, they weren't as bad as they are now. What are 
some of those differences that you can see now; and 
when you talk about the social pressures, what are you 
talking about? 

WG: I think that drugs have been absolutely 
devastating in those areas. Out of the drugs comes not 
only the destruction of health, but crime factors. Out 
of the crime factors you get a variety of social problems 
that follow in the wake of crimes, particularly when you 
look at crimes in a racist society in which they 
announce that this person is a criminal, this person is 
Black, ergo all people who are Black are criminals. 
Consequently there is a negative response on the part 
of the larger white population to a lot of the so- 
called minority group programs. As Malcolm X said, 
"Democracy in a racist society is Fascism." Have you 
ever heard of that expression? These are some of the 
things that become a problem in the wake of drugs and 
crime occurring in a racist society in a particular 
ghettoized area. 

LJ: Tell me a little about these factors that applied 
pressure in the Harlem community in the time when 
you were growing up. 

WG: You have the traditional economic: unemploy- 
ment, deterrence of one kind or another of upward 
mobility — economically, professionally, educationally. 
I grew up with a group of kids who were so bright; they 
wanted to be something, they wanted to be people with 

stature and significance. They wanted to make con- 
tributions of one kind or another, but they were 
thwarted and cancelled out by the "system" — by the 
discriminatory practices in education. You talk about 
this busing today; I remember when Black kids were 
holed up in one or two schools in Harlem — couldn't go 
anywhere else to get an education. If you couldn't get 
into those schools, that was it. 

On the plus side, of course, there was a lot of warmth 
up there, a lot of parties, a lot of fun, a lot of marvelous- 
ly interesting people who were highly supportive of me, 
of young people at that time. I was most privileged and 
lucky to have been on the receiving end of a sequence 
or series of very interesting older people who imparted 
knowledge to me, stimulated my mind, encouraged me, 
supported me emotionally in one way or another. These 
were people who were doing the work of institutional- 
ized agencies, but they were doing it for nothing. 

Basically the whole thrust of my life has been that of 
putting my knowledge and skills at the service of the 
Black community, the minority groups of this country 
— as well as the country as a whole, because we're not 
living in a vacuum. We can pursue the pure or ethical 
meaningful existence that we like as a group in this 
country, but if the more total community has not pro- 
gressed we have a serious problem. So I have a very ag- 
gressive interest in the reformation of a lot of things: 
the body politic itself, the whole American society, be- 
cause I feel that my interests aren't going to be served 
unless the interests of all people are served. That's 
been the thrust, and that leads me as a theatrical per- 
son, former actor, songwriter into the whole area of 
documentary as an educational tool, public affairs pro- 
gramming for television, and of course into feature 
films that are in one way or another substantive in 
quality. I have become progressively aware of the fact 
that the whole entertainment field, feature film in par- 
ticular, whether or not the subject matter addresses 
social issues directly is nonetheless an important 
social event. That is to say the happiness, the delight, 
the entertainment of people is a social exercise. I didn't 
always feel this way. I used to think that if a film didn't 
have some kind of content, it was of no consequence. 
But that isn't true, because people work hard all day, 
they go through various types of pain and suffering and 
so on, and sometimes they do need relief in the same 
way that someone needs sleep or a laugh — something 
to break up the tension of a moment. So I'm not as 
hostile as I used to be toward entertainment films. As a 
matter of fact, I've come to like them. I even find myself 
going to see comedies a lot, to break the tension that I 
sometimes feel that I'm under. There's considerable 
tension running the company. 

LJ: Tell me a little about how you got involved in act- 

I had a background in art as well; I was a painter. I was 
given a special scholarship to the Little Red 
Schoolhouse at the WPA project in Harlem, where I 
used to paint, do pottery on the wheel and all kinds of 
things. I also began studying trumpet, and I started 


B.L.MMWM c*#Tc#nrc:o 

writing songs. But my father was one of these no- 
nonsense guys who felt that art and music were for the 
birds, that a Black kid could never make a living at 
them. That's how I got to Stuyvesant High School. But 
my heart was in art and its related cultural expressions. 
That was on 7th Avenue and 50th Street. Do you 
remember the Roxy Theatre? It was a big theatre at one 
time. Gordon Heath, was doing the narration, and he 
was acting in a thing at the American Negro Theatre up 
in Harlem. He thought I was the type for a particular 
part, and said, "Why don't you come up and audition for 
this part?" Well, I went up there and I auditioned. I got 
the part and I got rave reviews and I said, "Oh Jesus, 
this is fascinating." Then I began to become an actor; 
and in the course of becoming an actor; involved as I 
was also with Afro-American history, a sense of dignity 
of Black people, I began to find myself in conflict with 
the theatre and the motion picture industry. Fortunate- 
ly, I looked like the "new Negro"; I was a young ail- 
American boy type, so I was getting parts that were not 
the typical stereotypical parts — I mean Uncle Toms 
and stuff like that. But occasionally they would ask me 
to play these parts, and it was at those moments that I 
found myself running head-on against various white 
producers who claimed they were friends and great 
supporters of Black people, but who were misrepre- 
senting us, and I resisted playing those roles. I never 
played them. As a matter of fact, I was in a play Jose 
Ferrer was directing with Gloria Swanson. There was a 
part in there for this Uncle Tom and I said I didn't want 
any part of it. I quit the show; it was the last thing I did 
on Broadway. As a matter of fact I only went to two 
days of rehearsals once I saw what they were serving. 
To make a long story short, I decided that I would move 
to the other side of the whole production process. 

LJ: When you began to have an interest in the 
technical aspects of film, what were people's at- 
titudes? Did you encounter any obstacles? 

WG: When I first started, they said, "Gee, how are you 
going to get into films?" They were intelligent people, 
they saw what the situation was. Here's America, proto- 
type of South Africa as we understand South Africa to- 
day, a wall of resistance to the upgrading of people in 
jobs and so on. How would it be possible for a Black 
man in this society to contemplate a future in the 
writing, directing and production of films? And they 
were right; except that because I had a deeper 
understanding than they did of history, I knew that 
there were other places in the world beyond America. I 
realized that I wasn't captive to America; this is my 
country and I live here, but my God, if they're going to 
start making lampshades out of me, I'm not buying as 
much as I can — I'll resist. So I went elsewhere; I went 
to Canada. 

LJ: Why did you choose Canada? 
WG: Because there was the National Film Board of 
Canada. It was a prestigious, very highly qualified film 
studio, the most important one in the whole world for 
documentaries. I had been featured as an actor in a 
feature film called Lost Boundaries, and one of the 
people who had worked on the feature was connected 
with the Film Board. He was my contact. 

LJ: When you came back to New York, what was the 
kind of milieu that you came back to? 
WG: The reason I came back was because I felt that 
America was changing, that America was going to 
make it as a country. It was not destined to become a 
social disaster area, which is what I had thought it 
might become. The impact of the Supreme Court deci- 
sion in 1954 and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and 
all of the various social sit-ins and civil rights struggles 
in general — I was very encouraged by this, that Blacks 
and Whites were working more collaboratively and sup- 
portively in something that the survival of the country 
depended. So I thought it was time for me to come back 
and lend my media support to this kind of concern. 
LJ: Tell me a little bit about how you got the company 
started, did you encounter any problems or find any 
areas of support from people? 

WG: When I came back from Canada, I came by way 
of the United Nations. I became an Information Officer 
in films and radio for a specialized agency of the United 
Nations in Canada, an agency called the International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). I came back to 
America because they wanted someone at U.N. Televi- 
sion who new about aviation but also was a filmmaker 
to make a film for them about the flight of an airliner 
around the world. Alistair Cooke was the host of the 
show. So Alistair and I went around the world making 
this film, in which he appeared and I directed and pro- 
duced it and wrote it along with him. Shirley Clarke — 
she's a very outstanding, female filmmaker who made 
the COOL WORLD and a number of other things — 
introduced me to George Stevens Jr. who was doing a 
lot of innovative work in government films for the U.S. 
Information Agency. When he saw my work he became 
very interested in working with me. He wanted me to do 
films for him on my own and from there I went on to set- 
ting up my own company because in order to do films 
for him, I had to have a company. I was able to get a 
loan from the Small Business Administration. Frankly, I 
would say that without government backing, I would 
not have achieved very much success as a filmmaker 
because the private sector was absolutely dragging its 
feet in terms of opportunities for Blacks in Hollywood, 
on Madison Avenue or in industrial films. The private 
sector was very hostile at the idea of Black filmmakers, 
and it still is. It's true, I'm an Executive Producer for 
Universal on a feature film and that's marvelous. I'm 
delighted, but I'm also aware of the fact that I'm the 
only one in a major studio out there. But, my God, if I 
can't be an Executive Producer on a feature film, who 
can? For instance, with my track record I defy you to 
find ... if you take the track record of most of the other 
Executive Producers out there I'll bet you that my track 
record is more extensive in film and theatre, in essence 
more substantive than theirs. I won't say all of them, 
but probably 90% of them; same thing with Directors, 
my background in dealing with acting problems is 
much deeper than the average Hollywood director. Yet, 
I'm having difficulty getting a Hollywood film to direct. 

LJ: Should other Third World filmmakers go after 
government contracts for films? 

WG: I think this is very important for people from 


minority groups that are into the media. Basically, Third 
World people in America are relatively poor. Sometimes 
we get so hung up and bogged down in our anger or 
rage at how things are going in this country that we 
don't make use of all the opportunities that are 
available for filmmaking in most of the federal agen- 
cies. Funding can also be gotten through the Endow- 
ments of the Arts and the Humanities and the various 
State Councils for the Arts. These are primary sources 
of financing for minority film and tape producers. I 
think it's stupid of us to turn our backs on money from 
these areas. In point of fact, this money is actually our 
money to begin with. I mean we pay our taxes. The 
various minority groups of this country represent 
roughly Va of the entire population. 
LJ: How about your move into feature films? 

WG: I did my first feature in 1967, and I had difficulty 
getting distribution for it because at the time it was 
very avant garde or whatever you want to call it. It was 
the kind of film that people now associate with Jean 
Luc-Godard, or Altman. 

LJ: But wasn't there a desire on your part to break 
into Hollywood? 

WG: Very much so. But not to make exploitation 
films. I was continually sending material out there. But 
they were turning it down because it was too healthy. 
They wanted junk food, dope, opiates. Eventually a 
promoter named Jerry Perenchio came to me with an of- 
fer to do a feature film on the first Muhammed AM & Joe 
Frazier fight for him. I made the film and it went 
throughout the country, played in quite a few theatres; 
it played on television about four times. It got some 
very great reviews. Then I did another film called THE 
MARIJUANA AFFAIR; that we shot down in the West 
Indies with money from the West Indies. I had to go out- 
side of the country to get financing. Finally Ned Tanen 
and Thorn Mount at Universal, both of whom have been 
very supportive of my work, identified me to be the film- 
maker to do the MESBIC feature out there. But that 
feature, for a variety of reasons never got going; Ned 
and Thorn were impressed with the quality of my work 
on that project and so when the Richard Pryor film 
came along they asked me to be the Executive Pro- 
ducer. They have indicated to me that they're interested 
in having me make other features for them as Producer/ 
Director. The Pryor film is called THE FAMILY DREAM. 
We haven't finished it yet. There's some additional 
shooting that has to be done. It should come out some- 
time in early summer. I have been interested in doing 
features ail along. It's only within the past two or three 
years that I've had a shot at it. Without people like 
Mount and Tanen punching for me I would have had 
great difficulty out there. 

Where does William Greaves Productions and William 
Greaves go from here? 

WG: William Greaves Productions is involved with a 
number of films that we're under contract for right now. 

I directed four dramatic films for television last summer 
that will play shortly. I have the feature at Universal and 
by next fall I will have done about 10 other documen- 
taries. Then William Greaves is going to take a rest for a 
while and hopefully some of the people that work with 
me will be sufficiently capable to handle the production 
work that will be coming in. William Greaves will pro- 
gressively move in the direction of directing & produc- 
ing feature films independently and in Hollywood. We'll 
make interesting substantive documentaries for organi- 
zations like the National Endowment for the Humani- 
ties or the National Endowment for the Arts. I see 
myself doing a couple of interesting documentaries a 
year — either investigative reporting or some kind of 
essay or artistic type film as well as doing highly 
theatrical, exciting, entertaining yes commercial 
feature film with or without social content. 

LJ: How do you feel when Black or Hispanic film- 
makers make only films that deal with racism? 

WG: I think it's unfortunate when an artist can't func- 
tion with a degree of freedom to pursue universal 
themes. I think that this is one of the tremendous, 
perhaps even oppressive burdens of the so-called 
minority group filmmaker. It is a fact that this person 
carries not only the normal load of creative enterprise 
that all artists carry but he or she must also carry the 
added weight to the racism of this country. The Black 
and Brown artist has always got to have one eye cocked 
on this problem and should from time to time address 
it. But, it's also true that we artists can't really become 
artists unless from time to time we extricate ourselves 
from the pressures of racism. It's truly a balancing act; I 
think that it requires considerable maturity on the part 
of the artist. I think that the individual artist should not 
turn his or her back on racism in this country; but the 
artist should not turn his back on other needs and prob- 
lems of America. The artist in his or her maturity has to 
integrate all of these elements into creative equation. 
It's judgement, with a degree of flexibility and patience 
and at the same time aggressiveness. You have to 
weigh these things off against one another. 

LJ: Do you feel that William Greaves has gotten his 
just do? 

WG: Frankly No. But I'm not bitter and I'm not going 
to run out and do something crazy. The answer is no. 
But I've made this "no" work for me. It's forced me to 
exceed myself at times. Clearly anyone who has had 
the number of distinctions that I've had, should literally 
be making feature films and highly prestigious docu- 
mentaries with good budgets as a Director and Pro- 
ducer. This is not happening. I do occasionally connect 
this or that interesting project but I don't do it with the 
degree of backing that one associates with a Francis 
Ford Coppola or Stanley Kubrick. But who knows, 
maybe my day will come. 11 

Medio Clips 

This new column will be an ongoing part of our informa- 
tion resource center activity. Any members with perti- 
nent information are encouraged to make submissions. 
Contact John T. Rice at AIVF. 



New Medium, a newly-formed telecommunications cor- 
poration specializing in designing programs for in- 
dependent producers and media organizations, recently 
completed a pilot program providing marketing support 
services at the PBS Program Fair, and a "New Market 
Update" workshop series at SWAMP (Southwest Alter- 
nate Media Project) in Houston. A print component of 
the workshops is being offered, entitled The New 
Market Update Handbook. The book is a first compen- 
dium of research conducted to date on the new market- 
place, with special sections on: proposal and budget 
development, business and negotiation guidelines, 
foreign and domestic market surveys, franchising 
regulations. More seminars are being planned. New 
Medium personnel include co-executive directors Joan 
Shigekawa and Angela Solomon, program manager 
Neal Brodsky, consultant Robin Weber. AIVF Board 
member Pablo Figueroa is also on the Board of New 
Medium. Contact Diane Johnson, (212) 595-4944, for 
more information. 


Premiere, a joint venture of Getty Oil and four major 
movie companies (Fox, Paramount, MCA, Columbia), 
has received an injunction on establishing a pay-TV net- 
work. Ostensibly a fight for those movie companies to 
retain exclusive pay cable rights for 9 months, the suit 
seems to focus more on the anti-competitive nature of 
Home Box Office's dominance of the pay cable market 
and its ability to keep feature prices low. Most people 
in the industry feel that it's just a matter of time before 
those film prices will rise dramatically. Independents 
should be poised to fill the gap. 


Cinemax: This add-on to Home Box Office has gone to 
a 24-hour format beginning January. Marketed as a 
family-viewing service, Cinemax has been responsive to 
half-hour and shorter independent films between 
Hollywood features. 

USA Network: This satellite-delivered cable network 
that specializes in live sporting events has inaugurated 
Time Out Theater, a series of sports-related films be- 
tween events. 

Cinemerica — This long-delayed cable satellite net- 
work, which hopes to tap the 45+ adult audience, has 
announced a May 1981 start-up. Twenty percent of its 
programming will be in-house, 80% acquisition. Con- 
tact Sandy Mandelberger at ICAP, 625 Broadway, NY 
NY 10012, (212) 533-9180. 



Cine Information has started to operate a computerized 
information service for film distributors and film- 
makers. Film Users' Network furnishes mailing lists on 
a one-time rental basis, and provides information in 
specific categories representing a wide range of film 
organizations and individuals. Using a CEC-20 com- 
puter, the user can contact a specialized group of film 
clients from over forty different data files. For more 
info: Robert S. Woods, 419 Park Ave. South, NY NY 
10016, (212) 686-9897. 

Cable Expo: More than 15,000 square feet of cable TV 
"software" will be exhibited at the expanded Cable 
Operators Programming Seminar in conjunction with 
the National Cable Television Association convention 
Oct. 4-6, 1981, in New Orleans. Contact: CTAM, 1725 K 
St. N W, Suite 1103, Washington, D C 20006, (202) 

Videodisc design: The Nebraska Videodisc Design Pro- 
duction Group plans a Videodisc Design and Produc- 
tion Workshop April 20-24 at Lincoln. Topics will in- 
clude player systems, ITV design for interactive discs, 
scripting, production techniques, progam evaluation 
and videodisc simulators, disc mastering and replica- 
tion. Participants will follow the process from content 
selection through actual sample production. Contact 
the group at KUON-TV, University of Nebraska, PO Box 
8311, Lincoln NB 68501. 

Indian Media: The fifth National Indian Media Con- 
ference will be held May 4-6 in Spokane, cosponsored 
by the Native American Public Broadcasting Consor- 
tium and the American Indian Film Institute. Atten- 
dance open to all Native American media groups and 
individuals. Workshops are planned on broadcast tech- 
niques, print media, federal programs. Contact: Frank 
Blythe, NAPBC, P O Box 83111, Lincoln NB 68501, (402) 
472-3522; or Michael Smith, AIFI, 5805 Uplander Way, 
Culver City Ga. 

Kodak workshops: Eastman Kodak's 1981 motion pic- 
ture and audio-visual workshops have been announced. 
Four-day AV production workshops are set for 14 dates 
and sites around the country, starting in March. Five- 
day film-production workshops on two levels are set for 
several cities starting in February. A free three-day 
workshop on Eastman color film lab practices will be 
offered on four dates starting in February, and a free 
two-day workshop on sound-track quality control, for 
three dates starting in March. Contact one of 
Eastman's regional offices or the Events Arranger at its 
Marketing Education Center, 343 State St., Rochester 
NY 14650. 


IN THE 80S. 



Guide to Electronic News Gathering Electronic Field Production & Electronic Post-Production for the 1980s 

With constant changes in technology and the pro- 
liferation of products, there are no quick and easy 
purchasing decisions in the ENG/EFP/EPP market. 
And with each buying decision impacting on plans 
for the future, you need all the help and advice you 
can get. Now. 

So whether you're looking to expand your present 
system or to upgrade it, or are making a commit- 
ment to field production for the first time, now's the 
time to order your copy of BM/E's ENG/EFP/EPP 
HANDBOOK: Guide to Electronic News Gathering, 
Electronic Field Production & Electronic Post Pro- 
duction for the 1980's. 


This guidebook is designed to be the authoritative 
text on the entire subject of electronic journalism, 
field production and post-production in the 80's. And 
it is skillfully written for both technical and non- 
technical readers — broadcast and non-broadcast users. 


Written by C. Robert Paulson, principal author of 
BM/E's best selling 1976 ENG/ 'Field Production 
Handbook, this brand new guidebook features an 
introduction by Joseph A. Flaherty, Vice-President 
Engineering and Development, CBS Television Net- 
work. And it has been edited by the distinguished 
team of James A. Lippke, BM/E's Editorial Director, 
and Douglas I. Sheer, BM/E's Director of Special 

Contents Include: 

Part I/Overview: Chapter I, An Aerial View ot the 1980 s. 

Chapter 2, Communication Becomes Electric, Chapter 3. 

Overview of Hardware Development Trends & Needs. 

Part ll/Electronic Field Production: Chapter 4. Cameras. 

Pickup Tubes, Lenses & Lighting, Chapter 5, Video Recorders, 

Chapter 6, Field System Accessories 

Part Ill/Electronic Post Production: Chapter 7. Editing 

Systems & Controllers. Chapter 8, Video Switchers: Chapter 9. 

Digital Video— TBC's. Chapter 10. Television Audio. Chapter 

11, Post-Production System Accessories 

Part IV/Wrap-Up: Chapter 12. Putting It All Together 

Appendices: (A) TV Standards. (B) Bibliography & Reference 

Together they have compiled: 

• Over 300 pages of detailed information 

• Twelve fact-filled Chapters 

• More than 300 illustrations, charts and 

TORY PRICE OF $15.95 (List Price: $19.95) 


Whether you're a broadcaster, an independent 
producer, an agency creative, a corporate video 
manager, a medical, educational or religious user, 
a programming executive or a government 
administrator, you'll want to make BM/E's 
ENG/EFP/EPP HANDBOOK an essential part of 
your buying process — as a planning guide for the 
80's and a buying guide for today. 


Save $4.00 off the regular list price of $19.95 by 
sending in this coupon today. 




295 Madison Ave., New York. N Y 10017 

Please send ( copies) of BM/E's ENG/EFP/EPP HAND- 
BOOK at the special introductory price of only $15 95 per 
copy (offer good through 2/28/81) 




City State 



Total Amounl 

N YS Residents Add 8-% Sales Tax 

Postage and Handling $2 85 U S 
$4 00 Foreign 

Tolal Enclosed 

Charge it to my □Bankamencard. DVISA. DMasterCard. 01 

DlnlerbankCard, # 

Makes checks payable to Broadcast Management/Engineering 


I.F.R Distribution Survey 




146 West 54th Street 

New York, NY 10019 


Paul Cohen, President 

Robert Kaplan, Vice President 

in charge of acquisitions 


585 Boylston Street 

Suite 33 

Boston, MA 02116 



8500 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, CA 90024 


Thomas Coleman, West Coast 
Michael Rosenblatt, East Coast 

600 Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10022 


6464 Sunset Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90028 


Dennis Friedland, President 
Norman Friedland, Foreign Sales 


595 Madison Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Ralph Donnelly, Vice President & Gen. Mgr. 
Bill Thompason, Theatrical Sales 
Ruth Robbins, Director, 16mm 
Arlene Weltman, TV Sales 


410 East 62 Street 

New York, NY 10021 


John Poole, President 
Peter Meyer, Vice President 


THE INNOCENT (Italy) 78 
THE PROFESSOR (Italy/France) 

to be released 


to be released 

MADAME ROSA (France) '78 

(Australia) 79 
MAX HAVELLAAR (Holland) 79 

IDI AMIN DADA (France) Non-thea. 


PEEPING TOM (Theatrical) 








(Affiliated with Scotia Films) 
600 Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10022 

Eugene Picer, President 

Peter Kares, Vice President 

Sol Horwitz, General Sales Manager 

440 Park Avenue South 
New York, NY 10016 


1144 Wilmette Avenue 

Wilmette, IL 60091 


Charles Benton, President (Chicago) 

Allen Green, Vice President, Theatrical 

Doug Lemza, Director, Non-theatrical 

Sales and Acquisition, also Theatrical Revival 

419 Park Avenue South 
New York, NY 10016 

Fran Spielman, Director 

197 Tenth Avenue 
New York, NY 
Ray Fischer 

200 West 58 Street 
New York, NY 10019 
212-CI 6-9343 

JIMMY THE C. (Theatrical Short) 

OPIUM WARS (China) '79 

THE SHOUT (Polish) 79 





"American Mavericks" Series 

and other independent titles such as 







Joseph Green 


200 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 10003 




Elan Ziv/John Miller 

159 West 53rd Street 
New York, NY 10021 

Jerry Rappaport 


250 West 57 Street 

Suite 314 

New York, NY 10019 


Donald Krim, President 

Marian Luntz 




505 Park Avenue 
New York, NY 10022 

Harry Abramson, Managing Director 


419 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 10016 


Ben Barenholtz, President 
Bruce Trinz, Vice President 
Sam Kitt 

853 Broadway 
New York, NY 10003 

Robert Shaye, President 

Stanley Dudelson, President, 

New Line International 

Michael Harpster, V.P., Marketing 

Sara Richer, Director, Creative Affairs 

16 West 61st Street 
New York, NY 10023 

Dan Talbot, President 

Jose Lopez, General Manager 

Jeff Libsky, General Sales Manager 

60 East 42 Street 
New York, NY 10017 

Sandy Greenberg, Vice President 
Edward Schuman, Vice President, Sales 
Meyer Ackerman, President, Acquisitions 
Jeff Lewine, National Sales Manager 
Arthur Tolchin 


120 East 56 Street 

New York, NY 10022 


Carl Peppercorn, President 

Irwin Wormser 







NEA (France) 


to t)6 rslGelSGCH 



DESPAIR (Germany) 78 







STAY AS YOU ARE (Italy) '79 

STAY AS YOU ARE (Italy) '79 






EL SUPER (U.S.A.) '79 





DOSSIER 51 '78 




NEWSFRONT (Australia) '79 





RUBBER GUN (Canada) 
PAYS BLEU (France) 



527 Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10022 
212-PL 3-4865 



3070 Wilshire Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90211 

Post Office Box 13185 
Atlanta, GA 13124 


419 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 10016 



Rodi Broullon 

Tom Prassis, Sales Manager 

11 Middleneck Road 
Great Neck, NY 11021 
212-895-7100 (NY line) 

Mr. Hassennien, President 
Mr. Assas, Vice President 

1500 Broadway 
New York, NY 10036 

Al Schwartz 


1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza 

New York, NY 10017 


Frank Stanton, Chairman 

Mel Marron, Executive V.P., Sales 

Tom Bernard, Director, Special Projects 







THE LAST WAVE (Australia) 78) 
QUADROPHENIA (Great Britain) 
BAD TIMING (Great Britain) '80 


6601 Romaine 
Hollywood, CA 90038 

William Chaikin, President 

Robert Rehme, Senior Vice President 


Post Office Box 69589 

Los Angeles, CA 90069 


Mitchell Block 

Deborah Walters, Aquisitions 



THE LAST OF THE BLUE DEVILS (non-theatrical) 



292 South La Cienega Boulevard 
Beverly Hills, CA 90211 




Mark Tenser, President 
David Siegal, Acquisitions 
Irving Krinsky 
Harold Ravitz 

9000 Sunset Boulevard 
Los Angeles, CA 90069 

Mickey Zide, Executive V.P. Sales 

310 North San Vincente Boulevard 
Los Angeles, Ca 90048 

Edward Montor, President 
Leon Blender, Executive V.P. 

4000 Warner Boulevard 
Burbank, CA 91522 

Dennis Feldman, Assistant to the 
President and Director, Creative 
Projects (Acquisitions) 






(Nous Irons Tous Au Paradis) 
STEVIE (England) 

9200 Sunset Boulevard 
Los Angeles, CA 90069 

Brandon Chase, President 

Marianne Chase, Director, Foreign Sales 


8500 Wilshire Boulevard 

Suite 506 

Beverly Hills, CA 90211 


Jules Gerlick, Acquisition of Sales 


Domestic distribution mainly 

1145 Mandana Boulevare 
Oakland, CA 94610 

Freude Bartlett 


Distributes mainly experimental 

and short films 



11600 San Vincente Boulevard 
Brentwood, CA 90049 

Roger Corman, President 
Barbara Boyle, Senior V.P. 
Ed Carlin, Foreign Sales 
Frank Moreno 

In New York: 
250 West 57 Street 
New York, NY 10019 

Steve Fagan, Sales Manager 

For additional information, please contact: 

The Independent Feature Project 

80 East 11th Street 

New York, NY 10003 











Prepared by: 

Joy Pereths 
Project Director 

Mary Sweeney 
Administrative Assistant 

With the assistance of 
Susan Ryan 


The Chicano Cinema Coalition is an association of forty 
independent producers and filmmakers from the Los 
Angeles area who have joined together for the 
"development, production, distribution, promotion and 
exhibition of a body of film and video productions 
which meaningfully address the social, economic, 
political and cultural needs and concerns of the Latino 
people in the United States." The group was founded in 
July, 1978, and since that time has met at least once a 
month to discuss the aesthetics, ideology, production 
and distribution of Chicano and related cinema and to 
view and critique films of all kinds. 

According to chair Jesus Trevino, the group "includes 
professionals and their own production and distribution 
companies. . .as well as television producers from 
local PBS and commercial stations and independents. 
We also have strong input from post-graduate film 
students. We maintain a close link between established 
professionals and up-and-coming filmmakers of the 

Under the direction of Jason C. Johansen, the 
aesthetics committee has screened and critiqued 
numerous films ranging from Tomas Gutierrez Alea's 
THE LAST SUPPER and Patricio Guzman's THE 

The Chicano Cinema Newsletter, the first regularly 
published newsletter on Chicano cinema, is edited by 

Louis R. Torres. It has published a select filmography of 
Chicano cinema, as well as the first bibliography on 
Chicano cinema, and carries ongoing articles dealing 
with aesthetics, funding, production and distribution. 

A key concern of the group has been expanding funding 
and production opportunities for Chicano film and 
videomakers. Under the direction of Trevino, and film- 
makers Jose Luis Ruiz, Sylvia Morales, Maria Munoz 
and Carlos Penichet, the funding committee has had 
ongoing dialogue with such organizations as the 
American Film Institute, the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, the Film Fund, the National Endowment 
for the Arts, and the WNET Independent Documentary 
Fund. The coalition's advocacy efforts are supported 
and reinforced by its association with Chicano civil 
rights and legal organizations. 

The social committee, headed by Adolfo Vargas, has 
hosted visits by prominent Mexican and Puerto Rican 
filmmakers and directors. The group's members have 
participated in the San Antonio Cinefestival, the U.S. 
Conference for an Alternative Cinema, the Rockefeller 
Seminar on the Future of Public Television Policy, and 
the U.C.L.A. Third World Film Festival. The Chicano 
Cinema Coalition is affiliated with the Frente Nacional 
de Cinematografistas of Mexico, the Comite de 
Cineastas de America Latina, the National Latino Media 
Coalition, and with numerous Puerto Rican and Latino 
filmmakers and producers in the United States. 




FOR SALE: 16mm Aupicon Frez- 
zolini Conversion to mag sound — 
$3,000.00. Angenieux 12-120mm 
lens, two amplifiers, Mitchell 
magazines, accessories. C.P. Ken- 
dall, 1217 11th Ave., Yma, AZ 85364 
(602) 783-8947. 

FOR SALE: Panasonic PK-3000 
color video camera with: electronic 
viewfinder and "C" mount: 6:1 zoom 
lens, 17-102mm, plus more. Hardly 
used. $600.00 or best offer. (415) 

FOR SALE: Convergence CSG-1 
with interface kits for 2850's. Ask- 
ing $500.00. Also DXC 5000 color 
cameras with generator, one still 
new. $1240.00. Contact Frank (503) 

FOR SALE: Sony VO 2800, Editing 
VTR, $2500. JVC 19" color monitor 
receiver (new), $600. Hitachi FP20S 
color camera, $8000. Hitachi FP 
3030 color camera, $1000. Telex hi 
speed audio cassette duplicator, 
$900. Sony TV 353 D 3 speed' reel-to- 
reel deck, $75. Heathkit oscillo- 
scope, $50. Heathkit vectorscope, 
$60. EICO audio signal generator, 
$25. Song Vz" videotape (new), 
$8/roll. Magnasync Moviola 16mm 
viewer/timer (new), $1000. Cine- 
Kodak special animation camera, 
16mm, $600. All of the above items 
are in good to excellent condition, 
and are guaranteed to work. Please 
contact Mike Stein at the Eckankar 
Audio Visual Department, (415) 

FOR SALE: Auricon double system 
camera, Crystal conversion by 
Mitch Bogdanovich, runs on 110AC 
or 12 VDC, 12-120mm Angenieux, 2 
mags, battery belt, shoulder rest. 
Good condition. $2000 or best offer. 
Doug Hart, (212) 937-7250. 

FOR SALE: Beaulieu 16RPZ Auto 
Exposure/Power Zoom Camera with 
12-120mm Angenieux, 2 Batteries, 
Charger, Case. $2000, or best offer. 
Doug Hart (212) 937-7250. 

WANTED: Eclair CM-3 Camerette 
Motors (crystal and/or constant 
speed), Magazines (16mm or 35mm), 
Kinoptik lenses (especially 40mm, 

32mm and 28mm), other acces- 
sories. Doug Hart (212) 937-7250. 

Conrac monitor (RVC-23), with yoke 
mount. Sale or trade for smaller 
monitor/receiver. Corn Muffin Pro- 
ductions, (212) 274-1949. 

Morven Films, an independent film 
production and distribution com- 
pany, is interested in works of a 
medical and health or safety related 
nature, on film or video tape. Write 
to Bruch M. Mac Issac, Manager, 
Morven Films, Box 179, Rochester 
Mills, PA 15771 (412) 286-9858. 

FOR SALE: Bolex 16mm with 12 x 
120 Angenieux Zoom and aluminum 
carrying case. Call Sydney at (212) 


The Consumer and Cable Television 
— a conference on consumer pro- 
tection issues related to cable 
television, sponsored by National 
Citizens Committee for Broad- 
casting and National Federation of 
Local Cable Programmers. February 
27 & 28, The Kennedy Center, 2700 
F. Street, NW, Washington D.C. For 
further information: Contact Sue 
Miller Buske or Joseph Waz, The 
Consumer and Cable Television, PO 
Box 12038, Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 462-2520. 

The Foundation Center is initiating 
seminars in thirty cities on fund 
raising and proposal writing. For in- 
formation contact: Carol M. Kurig, 
Director, Public Services, The Foun- 
dation Center, 888 7th Ave., New 
York, NY 10003. 

Filmmaker Molly Davies and 
dancer-choreographer Sage Cowles 
will conduct a seminar on Dance 
and the Camera, which will include 
performances of their art and dis- 
cussions about their work. The 
seminar will be held in the Horsh- 
horm Museum Auditorium, on 
Sunday, February 22, from 2-5pm 
and 8-9. To order tickets, you must 
use the special form obtainable 
from: Dance and The Camera, 
American Film Institute, John F. 

Kennedy Center for the Performing 
Arts, Washington, D.C. 20566. 

The Collective for Living Cinema 
will be conducting the following 
filmmaking workshops: SOUND 
Mar. 1, 10-6pm); EDITING TECH- 
NIQUES (Feb. 21 & 22, 10-6pm); 
OPTICAL PRINTING (Mar. 7, 10-6pm 
and Mar. 8, 1-4pm). All cost $60. To 
register, call: Collective for Living 
Cinema, 52 White St., NY (212) 

Young Filmmakers/Video Arts will 
offer the following courses: %" 
Videocassette editing; Elements of 
studio production; Producing non- 
fiction radio; Basics of portable 
video production; Directors project; 
Master class in editing and Advanced 
TV studio production. Scholarship 
assistance is available for Third 
World film/videomakers. To register 
and for more information: YF/VA, 4 
Rivington Street, NYC (212) 

Visiting Filmmaker Workshop: 
Hollis Frampton. A discussion of 
the future of film along with such 
matters as video and computer- 
generated sound with particular 
regard to the deteriorating 
economics of film production and 
distribution. Appropriate films will 
be shown. Saturday, February 21, 
10:00am-1 :00pm. Film in the Cities, 
3rd Floor. $10.00. Call (612) 646-6104 
to register. 

"Cultures in Focus", a three-day 
film symposium sponsored by the 
Bilingual Communications Center, 
355 S. Navajo Street, Denver Col- 
orado, will be held Feb. 26-28, 1981. 
"Cultures in Focus" aims to pro- 
voke multi-cultural awareness and 
understanding among cultures by 
presenting films/video from around 
the country which uniquely depict 
the Chicano/Hispano, Black, Asian 
and Native American. For registra- 
tion information: (303) 744-1264. 

Closed Circuit TV For Business and 
Industry Workshop offered by 
University College of Pace Univer- 
sity. Deadline for registration: 
February 19, 1981. Fee: $275. 
Workshop will be held on Thursday, 


March 5-May 28, 1981 from 5:30-9:00 
pm. For additional information: 
Susan Halle, University College of 
Pace University, Pace Plaza, NYC 
10038 (212) 285-6323. 

SYMPOSIUM: Feb. 20 ( 21, Los 
Angeles Bonaventure Hotel, 5th & 
Figueroa St. For info: Communica- 
tions Law Program, School of Law, 
UCLA, Los Angeles CA 90024, (213) 

Angeles offers workshops for video 
artists and videographers. For info: 

CHANNEL 25 offers studio work- 
shops the 3rd weekend of every 
month; portapak/editing workshops 
on the 4th weekend, $40. 1855 
Folsom Street, San Francisco CA, 
(415) 863-7885. 


Editing and Postproduction 
facilities available. Fully-equipped 
rooms, 24-hour access in security 
building. Two 6-plate Steenbecks, 
one 16/35 KEM, sound transfers 
from 1 /4" to 16mm & 35mm mag, 
narration recording, extensive 
sound effects library, interlock 
screening room. Contact Cinetudes 
Film Productions, Ltd., 377 Broad- 
way, NYC 10012 (212) 966-4600. 

3 A" Production and Rental. Sony 
DXC 1640 Camera, VO4800 Deck 
w/operator. $200/day. Special con- 
sideration for progressive groups. 
Instruction available. Progressive 
Video (415) 540-0827 or 540-0848. 

3 A" Editing in pleasant surround- 
ings. Sony 2860, RM 430. $25/hour; 
$150/day, w/operator. Longer book- 
ings by arrangement. 1 /4" Color 
Camera and deck with operator, 
$200/day. Original Face Video, (415) 

3 A" Editing. The new JVC Direct 
Drive Editing System is now avail- 
able for use. Full shuttle control up 
to 5x with audio and video program- 
mable in/out. FM dub. Preview/ 
Review. $40/hour w/operator. $30/ 
hour without. Total Video Co. (415) 
583-8236 or 756-1149. 


Call for Film and Video: New York 
Visual Anthropology Center is look- 
ing for material to be shown at 
festival in New York City during the 
first week of June, 1981. Contact: 
Faye Ginsburg, 127 W. 96th St., 
Apartment 11B, NYC 10025. 

The Museum of the Americn Indian 
is requesting information on films 
and videotapes made by or about 
native Americans and community 
projects involving native Americans 
for inclusion in a catalogue. Con- 
tact: Elizabeth Weatherford, Project 
Director, Museum of the American 
Indian, Broadway at 155th St., New 
York, NY 10032. 

WCBB-TV, a public TV station in 
Lewiston, Maine, is seeking work 
from independents that expresses 
"diverse, one-sided, dissident, often 
unpopular views". The "Seven Dirty 
Words" series will air 30 programs. 
Contact: Skip Farmer or Mike 
Mears, 1450 Lisbon St., Lewiston, 
Maine 04240 (207) 783-9101. 

Women In Focus, a non-profit 
feminist media center, is seeking 
videotapes by women that "docu- 
ment and explore topics of concern 
and interest to women, from a 
women's perspective." Their non- 
exclusive distribution network stret- 
ches through Canada and the U.S. 
Contact: Women In Focus, 6-45 
Kingsway, Vancouver, British 
Columbia, Canada V5T 3H7 (604) 

Women Make Movies is looking for 
new films and videotapes. The 
organization is committed to the 
production and distribution of 
women-made media. Contact: 
Andrea Weiss, WMM, 257 West 19th 
St., New York, NY 10011. 

Soho television is eager to show 
contemporary film or video art over 
cable television every Monday. Con- 
tact: Artists TV Network, Channel 
10, 152 Wooster St., NYC 10012 or 
call (212) 254-4978. 

Screen your video tapes (or film-to- 
tape transfers) on Cable TV, Pyblic 
Access (NYC). Sizeable audience, 
no fee/free service regular art & 
documentary series, any subject 
and style considered. Must be %" 
cassette or V2" BETA-1. Must be 
57-60 min. long or two 27-30 min. 

long tapes. Call L. Ross or H. Alan 
(212) 392-9321 and leave message. 

Laird Books Schmidt is looking for 
works by independent film/video 
makers for this Channel 10 series, 
"The Nightpeople Connection." Ex- 
posure but not money. Write: Tele- 
Vision Ideas, 2710 W. 110 St., 
Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 

Channel 8, an all-arts, California 
television station, is seking films 
and tapes on the fine arts, artists 
and contemporary dance. Contact: 
Andrew Thornhill, Channel 8, 2935 
Redondo Ave., Long Beach, CA 
90807. (213) 427-9398. 

Desire Productions is interested in 
screening the works of independent 
film and videomakers. Contact: Rick 
Sugden, Kirby Malone or Marshall 
Reese at Desire Productions, c/o 
the Merzaum Collective, 3022 Abell 
Ave., Baltimore, MD 21218, (301) 

The Design Arts Program of the 
NEA is assembling a comprehen- 
sive list of films and videotapes on 
the subjects of architecture, interior 
design, fashion and industrial 
design. For inclusion contact: Mary 
Bruton, Design Arts Program, NEA, 
2401 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 

WXXT's Second Sight series will 
pay $30 per minute for films and 
tapes from 2-60 minutes in length. 
Contact Pat Faust, Director of Pro- 
gramming, WXXT-TV, PO Box 21, 
Rochester, NY 14601. (716) 

Distributor seeks productions by in- 
dependent film and video makers. 
Specialize in health care market, 
but all subjects welcome. We offer 
alternatives to traditional distribu- 
tion agreement. For more informa- 
tion, contact Pelican Fims, 3010 
Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 440, 
Santa Monica, Ca 90404. Tel. 


The Museum of Modern Art's 
Cineprobe series offers a $400 
honorarium and is open to all in- 
dependent/personal filmmakers. 
Contact Larry Kardisk (212) 
956-7514. 21 


WXXI-TV's Television workshop 
gives post-production grants and 
Artist in Residence grants and pro- 
vides editing facilities and equip- 
ment. For information about appli- 
cation deadlines and requirements, 
contact Carvin Eison, WXXI-TV, 280 
State St., Rochester, NY 14601, (716) 

and/or announces a new six-month 
program (January-June, 1981), 
which will provide support for wide 
range of artists' projects. Requests 
can be for up to $1000., although re- 
quests for smaller amounts are en- 
couraged. Proposals will be re- 
viewed at least monthly — the first 
review will come at the end of 
January. To allow time for review, a 
proposed project should not begin 
until the second week of the month 
after submission. Projects can in- 
clude the development or presenta- 
tion of new work, public projects, 
publications, research, collabora- 
tions, planning, etc., in any 
discipline or medium. They must 
have a specific duration and must 
come from individual artists in the 
Northwest. For more information: 
Anne Focke, and/or, 1525 10th 
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122 (206) 

Emerging Artist Grants are 
available to beginning Hispanic film 
and video producers in amounts up 
to $2,000. Contact Oblate College of 
the Southwest, 285 Oblate Dr., San 
Antonio TX 78216. 

Video and graphic artists can apply 
for NEA visual Arts program Fellow- 
ships by contacting: Mail Stop 500, 
NEA, 2401 E Street, NW, Washing- 
ton, DC 20506. 1981 grant recipients 
will receive stipends of either 
$12,000 or $4,000 (for emerging 

The National Endowment for the 
Arts has twelve full-time regional 
representatives scattered around 
the nation. They act as liaisons be- 
tween their respective regions and 
the NEA, and give information and 
assistance at no cost to individual 
artsts, cultural organizations, arts 
agencies and other interested per- 
sons. Local representatives are: 
Gerald Ness (Mid-South States, 
2130 P Street, NW, #422, Washing- 
ton, DC, 20037, (202) 293-9042. 
Eduardo Garcia (Mid-Atlantic 

States, 113 Valley Road, Neptune, 
NJ 07753 (201) 774-2714. Mr. Ness 
represents Washington, DC, 
Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, 
North Carolina, South Carolina and 
West Virginia. Mr. Garcia's region 
includes Maryland, Delaware, New 
Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

The deadline for applications for 
Film Fund Media Grants has been 
extended to April 1, 1981. The Film 
Fund awards over $100,000 annually 
to independent producers for the 
production and distribution of films 
videotapes and slide shows 
addressing social issues. Final 
decisions will be announced no 
later than September 21, 1981. For 
further information: The Film Fund, 
80 East 11th St., New York, NY 
10003 (212) 475-3720. 


Video Maintenance Technician. 
Responsible for the maintenance, 
troubleshooting and repair of video 
equipment and systems. Requires 
good working knowledge of electro 
and mechanical operating princi- 
pals of video reel to reel and 
cassette records, camera chains, 
MATV and other supportive equip- 
ment that make up a B/W and color 
TV studio and distribution systems. 
Candidates must be graduates of 
qualified technical school with a 
minimum of 2 years experience in 
the maintenance of video equip- 
ment. FCC 2nd class license a 
benefit. Call Richard Towle at (617) 
353-4484 for an evening interview 
appointment. (Outside Boston area 
send resume or call collect.) Boston 
University, 19 Deerfield St., Boston, 
MA 02215. 

Sunspots, a half-hour magazine 
show on KTXO-20, is looking for ex- 
perienced director, producers and 
writers. Contact: Fiske Smith or 
Cliff Roth at (415) 776-9573. 

needed. Fordham Univ. Communi- 
cations major with video experience 
is looking to work as an intern on a 
production of a video documentary 
or project. Promising 8 hours of 
hard work each week from January 
19 to May 8, 1981. Contact: Don 
Devine, Fordham University, Apart- 

ment 1301, 555 E. 191st St., Bronx, 
NY 10458 (212) 733-2062 or (201) 

duction Manager: Specializing in 
documentaries. Excellent grant 
writing and fund raising record. 
Thomas Lucas, call (212) 663-0839, 
or (212) 675-5003 (leave message). 

The Chinese for Affirmative Action 
are in need of a production manager 
to handle rental of their video pro- 
duction package on an on-call 
basis. The production manager 
must handle bookings and billings, 
minor maintenance and accompany 
equipment when necessary. Ex- 
perience should include a knowl- 
edge of the TK-76 and BVU 100. 
Must have car. Salary is based 
percentage of rental. Send resume 
to: CAA, 121 Waverly Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94108. ATTN: Doug 


ZAPKUS — A film by Jerry 
Gambone; Museum of Modern Art, 
11 West 53rd St., NYC; Monday & 
Tuesday, March 9 & 10, 1981. 12 

FURTIVOS (Spain, 1976) Directed by 
Jose Luis Boreau; Screenplay by 
Mr. Boreau and Manual Gutierrez. 
Baltimore Film Forum, The Charles 
Theatre, 1711 N. Charles St., 
Baltimore; February 23, 7:30pm. 

TRY (Germany, 1975) Directed by 
Peter Lilienthal. Screenplay by Mr. 
Lilienthal and Antonio Skarmeta. 
Baltimore Film Forum, The Charles 
Theatre, 1711 N. Charles St., 
Baltimore; February 16, 7:30pm. 

film/video production unit of major 
university. Produce, direct, shoot & 
edit TV news features. PSAs. Con- 
tact Leonard Herr, Employee Rela- 
tions, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 

EDITOR to fine cut a documentary 
on life and times of tobacco farm- 
ing family. 3-4 weeks of work for 
grand salary and travel. Also, Assis- 
tant Editor for one week. Call Joe 
Gray at Appalshop, (606) 633-5708. 

Members are requested to submit NOTICES to AIVF, the Independent, 625 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10012. Please 
state which category (buy rent sell, etc.) in which you wish to be placed. 

Access II: Handbook for Satellite Distribution 

The National Endowment for the Arts has recently completed 
an Independent Producers' Handbook of Satellite Com- 
munications called Access II. This handbook is a practical 
guide for independent producers interested in distributing to 
PTV, cable and commercial television and radio systems. It in- 
cludes descriptions of current satellite systems and networks, 
contact person information and background history of in- 
dependents' usage to date. This handbook is a must for any 
independent involved in self-distribution. 

Authors: Joseph D. Bakan and David Chandler. NEA Publica- 
tion Coordinator: Marion Dix. Copies are $3.00. For more infor- 
mation contact John T. Rice at AIVF. 

Please send me 


an NEA publication, by Joseph D. Bakan and David 
Chandler, under the direction of Shared Communica- 
tions Systems Inc., New York. 

I would like 

copies. At $3.00 per copy I have 

enclosed a check or money order for $_ 
My address is 

Make check or money order payable to: 

625 Broadway, New York NY 10012 































3 £ 
>^ .Q 









o o 


a? 85 






















































£ >; 
















03 aj 





^ o 




















































CD id 



































k _ 









































































x m 










> z 


I - 











































> -< 









I - 


























n h ° x 


3 5.- 
£<D 3 


CO => 

§. 3 I? 

=S 3 3< 

1 3 


















CD - 



"" , 






CO — ' 

en ct> 

3 3 

3 3 

n a a n a a 

l' El 

O o 


2; CD Q. 

^' CO ^V 

CD O) o 

3 < S 

^ CD 3 
i ° 


g. C/> 


□ □ □ 1 




Q. 2 3 w 


o 2 

"O CO 
CD 2 

CU "O 


$ ZD CO g GO ^ 3 
CD ° 2 2. O O 2 

m ~\ cz a er — * O 

3 CD 

oo ii ^ a. t -3. 

— ► — r zr <: dt ZZ 

z+ cu 
o S2. 



CU cu 
oo en 


□ D □□□□□□2 

2 CD 
— CD 



S 2: §■ cd- 

|. CU ° CU 

3 3 c c= 

CU ju 3 

i " 1 


as $ 

° * £ 

B) CD * 

® o E 

3 * 

id sr 

(A CD 



Z c 
(/> *o 

a- o 

01 a) 


o 3 

O 0) 


5' ° 

• i 

o I 

2 $ 

W « 

CD _ 
O O 

2" °" 

8 • 

7 CD 

2 2: 

- O d 


•o _